NationStates Jolt Archive

Due to the unexpected high number of responses to the thread I started about Cheney's choice of outerwear at the Auschwitz memorial I became curious about how everyone feels about America's role in the world today.

Are we the leader of the free world? Of the world in general? Should we be? Are we the world's police force? Does the world need such an entity? We seem to be the only country able to step into such a role. China seems preoccupied with it's own corner of the planet, the EU is gaining clout but still lacks cohesion and a single-mindedness that such a role demands. Frankly anyone else seems to lacks the power to back up the world leader role.

So I wanna hear what NS has to think about this. Please let me know if you're an American or otherwise as I plan on doing a follow-up based upon the responses.

I'm an American, and as you guys might know, I believe that our country is the idealogical linchpin of liberal democracy, which, as we see, is critical to security. Now I am starting to think that some don't like us because we have lost the moral high ground in their eyes, but that we are too weak. In order to gain respect, the US needs a significant force to win conflicts. I believe we can do this more in reshaping our training, diplomacy, and equipment, and not necessarily more troops. But that's just me.

Do we really need a world leader as a country? We arguably have one in America, but only because it's such a dominant economic force. Whoever has the power makes the rules, so that's what happens, no matter if the world "needs" it or not.
I'm British if that's going to influence your response.

Are we the leader of the free world?

No, you might like to think you are, but most European countries wont do what you tell them, or ask them, or anything they think you might want...i certainly dont consider America to me my leader


Of the world in general?
no, do you think anyone in the middle-east considers you their leaders? no, its absurdley arrogant to think so


Should we be?
no

Are we the world's police force? Does the world need such an entity?

no and no. you like to think you are, but you have no legitimacy in any such role...as the rest of the world sees it you need to sort out your own problems before going charging into sovereign nations


We seem to be the only country able to step into such a role. China seems preoccupied with it's own corner of the planet, the EU is gaining clout but still lacks cohesion and a single-mindedness that such a role demands. Frankly anyone else seems to lacks the power to back up the world leader role.
the difference is that neither China or the EU like to think of themselves as the "world leaders" or the "worlds police force" and its that arrogant and self important attitude that makes people dislike America

So I wanna hear what NS has to think about this. Please let me know if you're an American or otherwise as I plan on doing a follow-up based upon the responses.
Im British

I'm an American. I feel that the answer is "no." The United States approaches foreign and domestic policy with an unparalleled aura of arrogance and stupidity. One day the US will drown in its pool of self induced oppressive capitalism and incompetence.

Are we the leader of the free world?
No. Thats just what they think they are.

Of the world in general?
No.
Should we be?
No.
Are we the world's police force?
Only when it serves your needs. So no.
Does the world need such an entity?
IMO no.
And I am not an American.

Hell no! I think we should mind our own business, and Im not the only one, when the US was the last superpower many said we should mind our own business and stay out of world affairs, while others said we have a responsibility. I have one thing to say, F*** bringing freedom to the "dark corners" of the world, does Bush still think the world is flat? I wasnt aware we had any corners on this planet. Their is no way to promote freedom and maintain peace and dignity in the world so give it time, do what you can, live your life and make your country the best that you can.

Well, if you think about it, America is not really a military superpower.

That is an illusion. Sure, there army has the best equipement, and all that shit, but america cannot actually take on anyone but military wusses.

I mean, the american people are completly unwilling to commit to any sort of long standing all out ground war.

They've only lost about 2000 soldiers in Iraq and the whole godamn countries up in arms.

As for leader of the free world, nah.

Just a happy delusion. Really cool and rich place, but free world, well now, I can't say that.

The last time America stayed out of foreign policies, Germany conquered half of Europe.... just a thought....
On the other hand, i dont like the way America is dealing with other countries at the moment. Diplomacy must consist out of more than just invading countries, which are unwilling to join their "world".
All in all i would say, that Americas influence in the world is maybe not unimportant, but it shall not be used without serious considerations (+cooperation with the rest of the free world !)

American.

The one and only time that the world would need a country or person as a leader is when the cultures of the world are fully mixed and prejudices eliminated as much as possible. Seeing as this is probably never going to happen, I really don't think we need someone declaring themselves as such.

I think the average American thinks we're doing some of these countries a favor by removing their leaders and forcing a democratic election, and maybe in some cases we are. I refuse to get into the ethics behind the war in Iraq, but first hand from my father, who was there serving in Camp New Jersey (Kuwait) and a unit in Iraq proper, the civilians he met were glad to see him there. That most likely will change, heck, it already is changing.

Does the world need its own police force? I think it does. But it should not be an individual country. The UN is a great tool, but they are too divided by the irrational hatred between countries. It seems that more often than not, Russia and China will vote against the US and their allies, no matter the issue. What we need is a multi-national group that's willing to bring the political hammer down on someone that's getting a little hot-headed, even if you're deployed against your home nation. To be honest, America needs a decent slap in the face. Isolationists had the right idea, to an extent. We need to be involved in international trade, but not the politics of the rest of the world. Unfortunately, you would have to keep the nations that are friendly to you, trade wise, in power to keep yourself afloat, which eventually would lead to breaking isolationism. *sigh* I think I'm talking in a circle. =_=

Anyway...


America a world leader militarily? Our technology is great, but barring nuclear warfare, a fair amount of other nations could probably defeat our forces.

America a world leader economically? Definately not, the Euro is stomping the Dollar flat. We may have a decent economy, but without dealing with our enemies from WWII, Japan and Germany, we'd be in quite a quandry.

Should another nation like China, Russia, France, or Britain step up to fill the role America thinks it occupies? Nope. While I may technically be a socialist (By definition someone who believes the government should provide everything), I wouldn't want to be led by a country that corrupted the definition of Communism or a nation that is the shadow of its former empire.

To be honest, I'm surprised America has survived as long as it has. The first true Democracy was actually in Athens and if I recall didn't last very long.

Of course America isn't a true democracy either. *shrugs* Well, what can you do? ^_^;

//////QUOTE:

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE LOST PLANET

Are we the leader of the free world?



No, you might like to think you are, but most European countries wont do what you tell them, or ask them, or anything they think you might want...i certainly dont consider America to me my leader//////ENDQUOTE


Ok, the term "world leader" doesn't mean a leader like someone who tells you what to do. It's more synonmous with terms like "trailblazer", "protector", "example to others" even "guy with the biggest stick" or "wealthiest". Regardless of what I as an American think, or what a European or Asian thinks, the U.S. is the world leader at this point in history. This means we make the greatest influences on the world overall, more so than any other country on the Earth. During each period of history, a nation or even a group of nations have always been the world leader(s). It's just part of the progression of the world. Yes, Europe had been the source of world leaders for a long long time, and it seems now that it has changed in the last 50 years, they have become quite bitter about it towards the U.S. Of course, this kind of attitude is nothing new in Europe. The history of Europe and it's wars is almost completely as childish and petty as that simple attitude. The weaker nations sought to pull down the stronger. Of course the majority of humanity has acted this way throughout most of history, so I cannot blame Europeans only, but it is they who seem the most bitter towards the current "stronger dog", the U.S.

Leader of the free world or world in general? Yes.

Should we be? Every dog gets it's day as the saying goes. It's just the natural progression of the world. Someday another country will be the leader.


Someday the US may not exsist. Who knows, maybe Europeans will find another continent to opress and turn into colonies, enslave it's natives, and strip it's resources? Maybe that continent will become another nation in the future who the Europeans can be bitter towards and stick thier noses up at for doing something they don't like. Wouldn't that be great? You could have a second country to hate! I'm sure you're drooling just thinking about it now...


World police force? Hardley. Isn't that the UN's job? Oh wait...they don't do thier job. Well, if we're not, we had better well do it, or someone please. Yes it's needed. Wasn't WWII a good enough example of what happens when nations are allowed to do whatever the heck they want? So, yeah, I think right now the World Police consist of US and UK mostly with aid of nations like Australia and...well basically most English speaking nations for some reason.

We seem to be the only nation suitable? Hardley. We're the only nation(s) willing. There is no reason the rest of the world can't come together as one and...oh there I go describing the UN again. Can we just call it the League of Nations? It's more appripriate.

China's problem is China cares only about China. That's alot of country's problem.

It's absolutely stupid, yes I called it stupid, to suggest what an "American" thinks. It's ARROGANT to presume what we believe. First of all, once you cross the Pacific or Atlantic oceans, you get a completely different story of what goes on here. Secondly, the US is so diverse we have no identity. We have no common thought, no common attitudes, no common beliefs, we are not a nation like France or Germany who has been around long enough to develop such attributes. The US is basically every type of person and every type of attitude and every type of belief, etc rolled into one large land mass. What decisions we make reflect a 51% majority against a 49% minority 99.9% of the time.

A country, or countries, being in the position of world leader is just something that happens. It's not needed, it's not uneeded. Such a question will have a different answer depending on what is going on in the world at the time. Most world leaders have been conquerors and empires in the past. Just be thankful we aren't ravaging Europe or something. Although France would be a nice state. ;)

Well, if you think about it, America is not really a military superpower.

That is an illusion. Sure, there army has the best equipement, and all that shit, but america cannot actually take on anyone but military wusses.

I mean, the american people are completly unwilling to commit to any sort of long standing all out ground war.

They've only lost about 2000 soldiers in Iraq and the whole godamn countries up in arms.


No offense but that is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. I've been in the US military for 8 yrs in two branches of service. Our military strength is incomparable to any but perhaps China, and they by sheer numbers. The best equipment...and training are exactly what wins wars, big and small, in modern day warfare. We can ravage a country without using any non-conventional weapons even before stepping foot on it with a single soldier. Our latest wars were small operations with alot of SOSO involved, so we had to make alot of precision strikes to minimize loss of life. In a real war against a stronger opponent, the rules change. If any country were to ever see the US bring thier strength to bear, and I mean non-nuclear, that country would probablly cease to exsist.

The Iraq war is just one big SOSO operation (support operation/stability operation). One of the biggest enemy tactics is to attack our national will by using propaganda such as beheadings, or even as far as covertly funding protests and literature that occur within our own country. That tactic was used during Vietnam and was extremely successful. You are right about our national will in an operation like this, but you are gravely mistaken about us if the stakes were ever raised. If we'd had a specific country to blame for 9/11 during the week it happend...like France did it or something...it would be a glass parking lot right now. The longer an operation takes, the more attacks on national will can whittle down our resovle. It is an old tactic.

LOL!!!! Yeah. Great job at the stability part. One can't help but to fall silent in awe at the great job our "beloved" Americans are performing there. :D

You can only lead if someone is willing to follow...
And for those who follow, ya gotta wonder.

No-one elected the US "Leader of the Free World". No-one elected the last few American presidents to any such office. So in any democratic sense, the US has no such claim. If it insists on making it, it is subverting democratic principles, pure and simple.

No offense but that is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. I've been in the US military for 8 yrs in two branches of service. Our military strength is incomparable to any but perhaps China, and they by sheer numbers. The best equipment...and training are exactly what wins wars, big and small, in modern day warfare. We can ravage a country without using any non-conventional weapons even before stepping foot on it with a single soldier. Our latest wars were small operations with alot of SOSO involved, so we had to make alot of precision strikes to minimize loss of life. In a real war against a stronger opponent, the rules change. If any country were to ever see the US bring thier strength to bear, and I mean non-nuclear, that country would probablly cease to exsist.

The Iraq war is just one big SOSO operation (support operation/stability operation). One of the biggest enemy tactics is to attack our national will by using propaganda such as beheadings, or even as far as covertly funding protests and literature that occur within our own country. That tactic was used during Vietnam and was extremely successful. You are right about our national will in an operation like this, but you are gravely mistaken about us if the stakes were ever raised. If we'd had a specific country to blame for 9/11 during the week it happend...like France did it or something...it would be a glass parking lot right now. The longer an operation takes, the more attacks on national will can whittle down our resovle. It is an old tactic.


See, that's what I'm saying. Alot of precision strikes against backwater nowheres are all well and good, and now, I probably have not place to be talking seeing as I'm not in the U.S. army, let alone have ever been in any military at all, but, see, you say, France, for example.

Now, The Baathist Army had near nothing in terms of equipement, by american standards.

But, think about a resistance movement in which the resistance members blend in, i.e. Angry white Frenchmen, armed with the weapons of the French army(which would have been hidden and some spirited away across the border)

Well, ok, say there bringing in weapons from Belgium. You increase forces on the Belgian frontiere to stop them, they can

A)Target you there, easily getting around the poorly equiped and outdate, understaffed Belgian Army, hitting your troops there.
B)Walk around to say, Germany, or somewhere else, and get the weapons in from there.
C) All of the above.

Now, say you just make a large military commitement to all the borders. Well, now, thats a huge amount of troops taken away from the angry French populace, who is by now rioting, protesting and attacking your men with whatever they've got,not to mention the strikes. Not an easy thing to deal with.

If your lenient and use soft tactics as is done in the good ol' land of the free, as your policies mandate, then they will continue. If you use hard tactics(physically engage protestors, essentially, think stopping the civil rights movement kinda deal) you whip them into an frothing, frenzied group of madmen, and now not only every Frenchmen supports it, but the world!

Alright, ok, so, now, dealing with the French terrorists.

These guys are probably made up of two kinds here

1) Angry French guys and kids, smalltime shit, you know, stabbing a soldier, throwing petrol bombs, taking a pistol and icing an officer, the like,(and as for officers, I don't think you'd find any Frenchmen willing to fill the post, or work with you at all for that matter, A,) They'd hate you, B) Community backlash, think the townships of South Africa during the eighties. I don't think anyone wants to risk the French equivalant of the necklace, whatever that would be.....anyway, you got my point)

2) Ex Military men training group one

3) Ex soldiers and military men,well trained proffesionals, organized into small groups, part of a large, co-ordinated national group, with A) (Most of) The weapons of the French Army B) The National Budget of France at hand(For one year)

Now, with these guys, your talking military surgical strikes and attacks.


Now, plus, in additon, you got with yah race riots, as the arab and black population of France, being significant in number, but stricken with poverty and alienated from the white population.

They would all be up forming nationalist movements, and the whites would go crazy, causing them(the nationalists) to go crazy,(such are the complexities of France, my friend) and you'd have big ol' race riots on your hands.


Now, How long do you plan on sustaining that?

Now, that combined with what you mentioned, propaganda, how long will america hold out? How long COULD they hold out? Not long, I should think.

And from where would you invade, might I ask? Spain, Monaco?

I don't think it would work out, my friend.

Now, again, I am not in the army, and I probably have no place saying anything, and do have very great respect for people such as yourself, but knowing what I know, from the school of goverment and the school of life, and having witnessed the terrible battles of the streets, well, I just can't believe what you say.

Are we the leader of the free world? Of the world in general? Should we be?

Leader of the free world, Well, American freedom that is. Should you be? No. Because people don't really care or want to be free. I think only countries that sincerely ask should be helped.

Are we the world's police force? Does the world need such an entity?

Probably. But IMO, anyhow you do it, people would still complain. It's either US isn't doing enough.. Or doing too much that their infringing on the people's rights, one way or the other you guys lose. Probably US needs a little timeout by themselves then the world would appreciate them better :D

Either than that, get a President that would sweet talk and befriend everybody and do nothing much by particitpating in UN like under Clinton.

I'm Malaysian.

Im British and I often hear the phrase that America is the leader of the free world.

Well I don't remember voting for them to assume that role. So presumably they are the dictators of the free world?

Are we the leader of the free world? Of the world in general? Should we be?

Leader of the free world, Well, American freedom that is. Should you be? No. Because people don't really care or want to be free. I think only countries that sincerely ask should be helped.

Are we the world's police force? Does the world need such an entity?

Probably. But IMO, anyhow you do it, people would still complain. It's either US isn't doing enough.. Or doing too much that their infringing on the people's rights, one way or the other you guys lose. Probably US needs a little timeout by themselves then the world would appreciate them better :D

Either than that, get a President that would sweet talk and befriend everybody and do nothing much by particitpating in UN like under Clinton.

I'm Malaysian.

See, thing is, alot of the time, what america does that pisses other's off is passed off as freeing them for the benefit of the american public, when in actuallity, it is for the sole purpose of helping, empowering and improving america, all for them, and any freedom that occurs as result of there actions is purely co-incidential.

And, when there not "solving" a problem, I.e, Genocide in Rwanda, it is because there would be no benefit(to america) in doing so, and so naturally we complain about there greed and hypocrisy.

But, in truth, can you blame them? There just doing what they need to do to survive and become more rich and powerfull, like anyone would do. If they threw themselves into every moraly right cause, they would get slaughtered, or collaspe into anarchy, or something bad.

So, we can't really blame them, can we?

But, to say they are saints, to say they are bringers of freedom and happyness, to say these things is extremly annoying.

Im British and I often hear the phrase that America is the leader of the free world.

Well I don't remember voting for them to assume that role. So presumably they are the dictators of the free world?

Haha! Funny!

Im British and I often hear the phrase that America is the leader of the free world.

Well I don't remember voting for them to assume that role. So presumably they are the dictators of the free world?
Presumably. Dictators are leaders, after all.

Presumably. Dictators are leaders, after all.


Hmmmm, true.....

I think that the world sees the US as an obnoxious group of yanks that keep butting into other people's affairs.

America has leadership qualities but the government doesn't know how to utilise(sp?) them.

Leadership qualities?

The only leadership qualities are a big honking army, massive wealth, and forcing dependence on others.

That's not leadership qualities.

The Soviet Union, now, they had all that except the wealth, PLUS leadership qualities.

America sometimes feels like a helper and sometimes feels like a bully.

Leadership qualities?

The only leadership qualities are a big honking army, massive wealth, and forcing dependence on others.

That's not leadership qualities.

The Soviet Union, now, they had all that except the wealth, PLUS leadership qualities.
Leading their followers into poverty?

Due to the unexpected high number of responses to the thread I started about Cheney's choice of outerwear at the Auschwitz memorial I became curious about how everyone feels about America's role in the world today.

Are we the leader of the free world? Of the world in general? Should we be? Are we the world's police force? Does the world need such an entity? We seem to be the only country able to step into such a role. China seems preoccupied with it's own corner of the planet, the EU is gaining clout but still lacks cohesion and a single-mindedness that such a role demands. Frankly anyone else seems to lacks the power to back up the world leader role.

So I wanna hear what NS has to think about this. Please let me know if you're an American or otherwise as I plan on doing a follow-up based upon the responses.

HAHAHAHAHA

USA? Leader of the free world? Hrmmph...
HAHAHAHAHAHA

It's more the laughing stock of the free world than anything else.

The USA that was the world leader in many areas is only history now. Todays USA is no such thing unfortunatly. And in the next 4 years it will distance itself even more from that role.

Not American, but been living in USA since the late 90's. Will NEVER apply for American citizenship. not a chance in hell!

Leading their followers into poverty?

If you look and read just a little bit, there followers were already in poverty, thus the whole reason for the revolution and murder of the monarchs. It did make life better for the russians and assorted republics, if only slightly.

I mean, if you look at life for the peasants before and after, the poor became considerably richer and better of in comparison with there ancestors under rule of the oligarchs.

Now, I'm not a commie, nothing like that, but in the union, at least every citzen was thought of, if only on a piece of paper.

Leading their followers into poverty?


Leading about 20 other peoples(as in, Ukrainians, Romanians,ect.) into doing whatever the hell they wanted.

HAHAHAHAHA

USA? Leader of the free world? Hrmmph...
HAHAHAHAHAHA

It's more the laughing stock of the free world than anything else.

The USA that was the world leader in many areas is only history now. Todays USA is no such thing unfortunatly. And in the next 4 years it will distance itself even more from that role.

Not American, but been living in USA since the late 90's. Will NEVER apply for American citizenship. not a chance in hell!

Hope your visa doesn't expire.

*Bump*

America is like Superman with Lex Luthor whispering in his ear.

We've got a LOT of power, but we can't spread it all too easily. Superman can only be in one place at once, etc.

While we're given some really bad advice by Lex, we -try- to do what we THINK is right. But Lex's advice is wholly based on profit.

At one point, we did, in fact, 'Save the day'. So Lex convinced us that we should protect the whole world, forever.

Supes thought it was a good idea. He could make the world a better place.

Then Supes realized the world, while happy to be saved during a big problem, really doesn't want Supes using his X-Ray Vision on them 24/7.

Lex tricked Supes in to thinking this means that there are criminals afoot, and so now he's starting to push his weight around until people 'see the light' (while Lex makes a tidy profit).

Where's Batman and his spare kryptonite when you need him?

Hope your visa doesn't expire.

So......his visa is going to expire because you don't like him?

America is like Superman with Lex Luthor whispering in his ear.

We've got a LOT of power, but we can't spread it all too easily. Superman can only be in one place at once, etc.

While we're given some really bad advice by Lex, we -try- to do what we THINK is right. But Lex's advice is wholly based on profit.

At one point, we did, in fact, 'Save the day'. So Lex convinced us that we should protect the whole world, forever.

Supes thought it was a good idea. He could make the world a better place.

Then Supes realized the world, while happy to be saved during a big problem, really doesn't want Supes using his X-Ray Vision on them 24/7.

Lex tricked Supes in to thinking this means that there are criminals afoot, and so now he's starting to push his weight around until people 'see the light' (while Lex makes a tidy profit).

Where's Batman and his spare kryptonite when you need him?


wow.....he's right.....cosmic, almost-dare I say it?-Jamaican.

So......his visa is going to expire because you don't like him?


Yep, that's exactly it. [/sarcasm]

I just have little respect for someone that would move into a country for an extended period of time and not become a citizen, unless it's for military or scholarly purposes.

ALAS........NO LONGER IS THE US A TRUE WORLD LEADER!!

Yep, that's exactly it. [/sarcasm]

I just have little respect for someone that would move into a country for an extended period of time and not become a citizen, unless it's for military or scholarly purposes.


If you become a citzen, you are automatically subject to all of that nations laws, which may not be so favorable.

Also, alot of citzenship applications in the U.S. do not go threw unless you renounce your other citzenships. Not so much any more, but it still happens.

first off, I am an American. With that being said, I want to say to the rest of the world that many American citizens DON'T want to be spending their tax dollars so that we can build bridges in Iraq. How about building those bridges in America? Or fully funding the Education acts? The only reason America is in it's position now is a bunch of corrupt, evil Businessmen managed to get their lackey into office (Bush) via a completely overlooked Judicial procedure and thus Bush was illegally pres. If Gore had been elected, America would have continued its policies of the '90s, meaning using our economic and dimplomatic skills instead of our military.

For the question of a world leader, one is not needed. As the world globalizes, and nations economie's specialize, a world military and diplomatic force that has real authority needs to exist (not the current UN, the pussies), and the ability to slap and keep even the most powerful nations under control.

Most Americans are, while being very philanthropic, still self-centered and care about ourselves. We don't want to be spending our money on keeping a superpowerfully military in foreign nations when we could be spending it on rebuilding our economic infrastructure or public works projects.
**Sigh** If only we could get someone intelligent (like Clinton was) in office

Were there a global police force, it would simply become corrupt.

And it would naturally force it's ideals on all the other countries.

It would be the exact same thing.

As for Iraq, that doesn't matter. Where talking about weather or not america is a global leader, and all that other stuff he said.

The US is the greatest nation of anytime and anyplace. It is without doubt a world leader in all respects.

Of course some other nations are jelous of this and employ sophistry to attempt to belittle us, but to no avail. The US is still the best country in the World.

No, you might like to think you are, but most European countries wont do what you tell them, or ask them, or anything they think you might want...i certainly dont consider America to me my leader

hell, in canada we don't even always bend to the will of the u.s. the only reason we do is that they keep threatening to tighten up the border controls which would screw the whole importing and exporting thing we have going there. we need to start trading with some new people, i think instead of people who want to run our country.

The US is the greatest nation of anytime and anyplace. It is without doubt a world leader in all respects.

Of course some other nations are jelous of this and employ sophistry to attempt to belittle us, but to no avail. The US is still the best country in the World.


And this is the reason it shall fall.

I admit, many politicians are jealous, even many citzens of modernized nations, but guess what?

Ask the Desi nomad or the Costa Rican farmer, they don't want to be you. They are happy with what they have.


And remember, my friend, all great empires fall.

Every last one to date, with the exception of your own, and it's time rapidly approaches.

If you translate "leader" into German, you get "Führer".

And THE Führer was Adolf Hitler.

Does this answer your question?

Well, if you think about it, America is not really a military superpower.

That is an illusion. Sure, there army has the best equipement, and all that shit, but america cannot actually take on anyone but military wusses.

I mean, the american people are completly unwilling to commit to any sort of long standing all out ground war.

They've only lost about 2000 soldiers in Iraq and the whole godamn countries up in arms.

You are right about many things in this arguement. Im not saying we should have a draft, but the current US army is relying only on an advanced array of weapons instead of large masses of US troops. The US army is nearly stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are not currently fighting a conventional ground war. In the early days of operation iraqi freedom, the war was more conventional and the coalition rolled into bagdad with only minor snags. Now, geurilla warfare is taking place along with suicide bombings which america has never dealt well with. The US is going much better against the geurilla attacks than in Vietnam, but it is also a different environment they are fighting in. Also, the Americans are "up in arms" because the Iraq war did not have a good reason to invade iraq unlike the support for operation enduring freedom where we invaded afghanistan because of the 9/11 attcks. You are right, america is not a military superpower at the moment, but if the US had to mobilize for a large scale conventional war, they probably would

And this is the reason it shall fall.

Every last one to date, with the exception of your own, and it's time rapidly approaches.

And how much longer do you think the US would last?

Id give it another 200-400 years depending on who develops nukes, political turmoil, and stablity

give your opinion id like to know what you think

I believe that we aren't the "leaders", per se, but on of the most powerful forces on the planet. While we aren't the people who make up world laws, we can afford to enforce our will because we have the power of the pocket.

I do believe, however, that we are the sole superpower and while the world may not like it, we are one of the few countries that can help solve problems. Sure, the Brits, French, and Germans can too, but they just don't have the capacity to. We can afford to send forces all over the world, and most(key word: MOST) of the time we end up fixing the problem. Of course, in those other times when we mess up we plunge country deeper into conflict, cause thousands of deaths, and then our people become wusses and want us to forget about the whole world.

And how much longer do you think the US would last?

Id give it another 200-400 years depending on who develops nukes, political turmoil, and stablity

give your opinion id like to know what you think

I think the US hegemony, not the US itself, has about another 15 to 20 years. The bubble is too big, the economy is rotten at the core. When a country appears to have more lawyers, accountants, stockbrockers, personal trainers and hairdressers than farmers or manufacturing plant workers, the economy is a little hollow. When the most successful man in the nation bets against the dollar (http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/jan/31gates.htm) you have to think that something is wrong.

wow i think the anti-USA comments out number the pro-US comments by 6 to 1

I think i live in the most hated country in the world :(

I think the US hegemony, not the US itself, has about another 15 to 20 years. The bubble is too big, the economy is rotten at the core. When a country appears to have more lawyers, accountants, stockbrockers, personal trainers and hairdressers than farmers or manufacturing plant workers, the economy is a little hollow. When the most successful man in the nation bets against the dollar (http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/jan/31gates.htm) you have to think that something is wrong.

Well, people fortold that Rome would fall because it was too power-hungry and evil.

And guess what? Rome(including the Byzantine Empire) lasted over 2,000 years.

And while I agree we won't be the most powerful nation in the world for long, I believe it will last until around 2050. Then we will slowly fade away, like the Great Britain did. Now that is aging with style.

I think the US hegemony, not the US itself, has about another 15 to 20 years. The bubble is too big, the economy is rotten at the core. When a country appears to have more lawyers, accountants, stockbrockers, personal trainers and hairdressers than farmers or manufacturing plant workers, the economy is a little hollow. When the most successful man in the nation bets against the dollar (http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/jan/31gates.htm) you have to think that something is wrong.

I dont think that it will be that short, but i do think that the US is eating itself from the inside and will probably fall victim to a civil war instead of external forces if the economic situation gets much worse

time 50-100 years (either change in type of goverment or deterioration)

my other guess is based on external forces

I believe that we aren't the "leaders", per se, but on of the most powerful forces on the planet. While we aren't the people who make up world laws, we can afford to enforce our will because we have the power of the pocket.

For only a very little longer. The US depends upon oil being sold in dollars and on the dollar being a reserve cureency. Both are changing.

I do believe, however, that we are the sole superpower and while the world may not like it, we are one of the few countries that can help solve problems. Sure, the Brits, French, and Germans can too, but they just don't have the capacity to. We can afford to send forces all over the world, and most(key word: MOST) of the time we end up fixing the problem. Of course, in those other times when we mess up we plunge country deeper into conflict, cause thousands of deaths, and then our people become wusses and want us to forget about the whole world.

Could I insert the word "remaining" in front of "superpower" as I believe the concept to be outdated. It is reallt only the Americans that talk in terms of superpowers any more. The rest of us tend to refer to trading blocks or cultural areas of influence and such like.
The EU has the capacity to send forces anywhere it so chooses. It simply does not choose to do so very often. Admitedly, sometimes, the US approach does solve the problem. The difficulty is that this is less frequent than the times when it either makes the problem worse (Vietnam being the classical example) or simply shifts the problem to another field (Colombia - from left wing extremism to drug production, as an example)

But is the USA a true world leader? It would have to be admitted, that in many areas, both god and bad, the USA does break the ice and the rest follow. From (good) freedom of speech in principle to (bad) accounting malpractice. Does this mean that it can impose its beliefs and culture on the rest of the world? No, I am afraid not, not even Genghis Khan managed that one.

If you translate "leader" into German, you get "Führer".

And THE Führer was Adolf Hitler.

Does this answer your question?
I have read some pretty stupid stuff in my time, but I think this one takes the cake. You are pretty much saying anyone who is a leader at anything is, or is like, Hitler. How about the president of a teachers union? The supervisor of an animal shelter? Your principal in school? Your teacher in school? Your parents? Your Grandparents? Your mayor? Unless you are some loner freak, you will most likely have a family of your own and one day become a "leader" of your family. Guess you are Hitler too aye?

wow i think the anti-USA comments out number the pro-US comments by 6 to 1

I think i live in the most hated country in the world :(

Console yourself, you have the freedom to hear it and leave if you want to. Actually there are far worse places to live:
North Korea,
Zimbabwe,
Haiti,
(Wales :D )
are three very clear examples that come immediately to mind. Other places that are almost certain to be worse include Argentina, Rumania, Libya, Myanmar, Nepal (right now).

I have read some pretty stupid stuff in my time, but I think this one takes the cake. You are pretty much saying anyone who is a leader at anything is, or is like, Hitler. How about the president of a teachers union? The supervisor of an animal shelter? Your principal in school? Your teacher in school? Your parents? Your Grandparents? Your mayor? Unless you are some loner freak, you will most likely have a family of your own and one day become a "leader" of your family. Guess you are Hitler too aye?

I really think some of my teachers are like hitler sometimes lol :D

Console yourself, you have the freedom to hear it and leave if you want to. Actually there are far worse places to live:
North Korea,
Zimbabwe,
Haiti,
(Wales :D )
are three very clear examples that come immediately to mind. Other places that are almost certain to be worse include Argentina, Rumania, Libya, Myanmar, Nepal (right now).

I said most hated, not worst off

For only a very little longer. The US depends upon oil being sold in dollars and on the dollar being a reserve cureency. Both are changing.



Could I insert the word "remaining" in front of "superpower" as I believe the concept to be outdated. It is reallt only the Americans that talk in terms of superpowers any more. The rest of us tend to refer to trading blocks or cultural areas of influence and such like.
The EU has the capacity to send forces anywhere it so chooses. It simply does not choose to do so very often. Admitedly, sometimes, the US approach does solve the problem. The difficulty is that this is less frequent than the times when it either makes the problem worse (Vietnam being the classical example) or simply shifts the problem to another field (Colombia - from left wing extremism to drug production, as an example)

But is the USA a true world leader? It would have to be admitted, that in many areas, both god and bad, the USA does break the ice and the rest follow. From (good) freedom of speech in principle to (bad) accounting malpractice. Does this mean that it can impose its beliefs and culture on the rest of the world? No, I am afraid not, not even Genghis Khan managed that one.


Well, we can't force[b] our culture on people, but it's already been [b]accepted by alot of the world(I am serious. Down here in Panama, there are jeans EVERYWHERE! In Pakistan, you always see people hanging out at American-style bars).

I agree the E.U. has the capacity to send people everywhere, it won't because of the conflicting interests inside the E.U. The French think they are the most important, the Germans think they are the most important, the British think they are the most important... Anyhoo, I do agree that Superpowers are gruadually being replaced by Economic blocs. The thing is, the U.S. already has a global trading and culture bloc, we just haven't realised it. If all of a sudden, the U.S. stopped trading with all it's partners, at least 50% of the worlds economy would collapse, and then be re-built in about 10-15 years by the E.U.

All in all, like it or not, the U.S. still plays a major role in world politics. If we were to stop meddling in other peoples affairs in an instant(which is what about 90% of the world is saying), then alot of problems would arise. If we do it slowly and gradually, then the world will be able to ajust.

Thats why I said 50 years. I think that's just enough time. Of course, if someone tried to re-start our engine again, then we could go another 100 years. Of course, no one is brave enough to try and increase our influence. Now they just want it to stay the same.

Even Japan, the totaly isolated country until the last century or so, has accepted alot of our culture. They celebrate christmas, make up songs using the names of our products, and have cowbow stlye bars(really popular... made me laugh).

:D Well, we can't force[b] our culture on people, but it's already been [b]accepted by alot of the world(I am serious. Down here in Panama, there are jeans EVERYWHERE! In Pakistan, you always see people hanging out at American-style bars).

I agree the E.U. has the capacity to send people everywhere, it won't because of the conflicting interests inside the E.U. The French think they are the most important, the Germans think they are the most important, the British think they are the most important... Anyhoo, I do agree that Superpowers are gruadually being replaced by Economic blocs. The thing is, the U.S. already has a global trading and culture bloc, we just haven't realised it. If all of a sudden, the U.S. stopped trading with all it's partners, at least 50% of the worlds economy would collapse, and then be re-built in about 10-15 years by the E.U.

All in all, like it or not, the U.S. still plays a major role in world politics. If we were to stop meddling in other peoples affairs in an instant(which is what about 90% of the world is saying), then alot of problems would arise. If we do it slowly and gradually, then the world will be able to ajust.

Thats why I said 50 years. I think that's just enough time. Of course, if someone tried to re-start our engine again, then we could go another 100 years. Of course, no one is brave enough to try and increase our influence. Now they just want it to stay the same.

:eek: Wow! Did someone from another country just come up with a pro-USA statement? i diddnt even know that people outside of the US supported (or at least have anything bad to say about) the US. :) You just made my day! :D

Did you say you are from panama or the US

If we were to stop meddling in other peoples affairs in an instant(which is what about 90% of the world is saying), then alot of problems would arise.


Whats the other 10%? I think meddling in other peoples affairs is 100% of what people are saying

Well, we can't force[b] our culture on people, but it's already been [b]accepted by alot of the world(I am serious. Down here in Panama, there are jeans EVERYWHERE! In Pakistan, you always see people hanging out at American-style bars).

Material culture can be exported and has been, over and over again. It changes like fashion, mostly because it is fashion. When I was referring to Genghis Khan failing to impose on others I referred to beliefs and culture with the belief part being critical. Further down here in Brazil, everyone wears jeans and t shirts, but not everyone believes in the almighty dollar. Clearly some do, any religion will have some success here, but only a few.

I agree the E.U. has the capacity to send people everywhere, it won't because of the conflicting interests inside the E.U. The French think they are the most important, the Germans think they are the most important, the British think they are the most important... Anyhoo, I do agree that Superpowers are gruadually being replaced by Economic blocs. The thing is, the U.S. already has a global trading and culture bloc, we just haven't realised it. If all of a sudden, the U.S. stopped trading with all it's partners, at least 50% of the worlds economy would collapse, and then be re-built in about 10-15 years by the E.U.

The EU still has its internal niggles, but these are no more serious than Texas vs California vs NY. When it comes to dealing with the USA or China of even Brazil, on economic matters the EU closes ranks and stands firm.
If the US stopped trading with its partners, the US would collapse a great deal faster than the rest of the world. The rest of the world can seek alternative partners. (China, India, Malaysia, Brazil, the EU,for example all have more than 200 million consumers) The USA can not as it is already too dependent on external factors.

All in all, like it or not, the U.S. still plays a major role in world politics. If we were to stop meddling in other peoples affairs in an instant(which is what about 90% of the world is saying), then alot of problems would arise. If we do it slowly and gradually, then the world will be able to ajust.

My argument was economic. In political terms, the USA is and always will be important. It represents a sizeable block of the world's population. And an even higher percentage of the worlds educated population. It has had contributions to make in the past, it has contributions to make now and will have in the future. The question is as to the perceived hegemony. It is this that I believe will fall, with the economy.

Thats why I said 50 years. I think that's just enough time. Of course, if someone tried to re-start our engine again, then we could go another 100 years. Of course, no one is brave enough to try and increase our influence. Now they just want it to stay the same.

They would have to work miracles, literally, if they were to restart the US economy. They would have to reintroduce the concept of a product as the rest of the world understands it. This being something that you provide to someone who actually wants it, rather than something that you are told that they have to have in order to be to be a good american and be successful. (Have you ever wondered why people pay so much for air nike etc?)

Whats the other 10%? I think meddling in other peoples affairs is 100% of what people are saying

There is always going to be that 10% that hate the USA just for existing (Basic jealousy and all that stuff) :)

There is always going to be that 10% that hate the USA just for existing (Basic jealousy and all that stuff) :)

That's about right :D

A couple of things.

Every time some little Middle-Eastern or African country is being oppressed by a dictator or another country is beating the crap out of them because their leader is a power-crazed, militant maniac, like Saddam, everyone screams at the powerful US to help out. So America goes in, stomps a few asses, gives out a few generators and loses a couple of brave soldiers to cowardly enemy tatics like roadside bombs or shooting Black Hawks. So what does the world do? They get pissed off at the US for deploying military force, even though the people of the country AND the world asked for it! So what is the US to do? If they enter a country, they get yelled at for being warmongering assholes, and if they don't, people whine because they are not helping out! The US can bring huge military power to bear, yet it is unable to use it even when it is to help the people of the country it is involved in! All these little wars America has fought in the 80s and 90s? The US went in after the world and the country requested military aid!

As far as I see it, the power from being an economic and military superpower should be used! Sure, they don't have to be the world police force, but since nobody other than my southern neighbours are going to help these poor oppressed Iraqis, Afganis and whoever else without being first convinced by the US, who is going to do it? Again, as has been stated, the Chinese are too busy with there corner of the world, and the EU is still trying to get their asses in gear and figure out just how much they want to give up for the whole. The US, as a single country, has the advantage that they can always agree to do something, because only one party is involved! The EU can't claim that, can they?

Having a single, mostly moral democratic nation "policing the world" doesn't sound as bad as having nobody to pick up the crap other nations throw at each other, or having a morally mislead nation, or a corrupt commie government, or anything like it, as the "world police", does it?

Now, on to a pressing issue.

Iraq

Now, I'm a Canadian. My government didn't go into Iraq, a good thing too, because Canada is anything but a modern military force. HOWEVER, I completely support America and their allies in the war in Iraq. Here is why.

Iraq was oppressed.
Saddam was killing thousands of his people a year. He was known to have used poison gas against both his military enemies AND his own people. His government was corrupt. He imployed 30% of the countries population, in some way, to support his government rather than using the manpower he was pulling from the pool to create basic (money importing) jobs, and improve his economy. He invaded surronding countries for less reason than the US has used in ANY of their wars. He stole MILLIONS of dollars of aid from other countries, INCLUDING the US, but never even used them himself, never mind his people. His sons were both as evil as he was and it is almost certain one of them would take power after Saddam's death, kill the other, pull a Stalin style purge of the military, kill several thousand people to establish the fact that they wouldn't take any bull, and then kill twice as many people in a couple of years then the war has to get rid of anyone who disagrees or seems too, as well as any group he didn't belong to that he could oppress.
After considering all that, doesn't the war seem more moral?
Saddam needed a good kicking. Everyone knew it, but were too big a pansy to do anything. Along comes George W. Bush, fresh out of another corrupt country who the world had nothing against invading, ready to (hopefully) strike another blow against terrorism, dictators, and other such people. He was a smart enough leader to know that Iraq needed a beatdown and a strong enough leader to follow through with it. Good for him.

Of course, it seems a terror attack like 9/11 only allows one (1) invasion before it becomes invalded, because no sooner had Mr. Bush looked at Iraq and said something along the lines of "That place is pretty f***ed up", groups started yelling at him for being a warmongering Texan. Or, America isn't allowed to help any country which could possibly have oil. Oil? Oil bad. Oil make Americans go crazy. Ugg dislike crazy Texans with guns. As if. America hasn't TOUCHED ANY of Iraq's oil, dispite claims to the contrary. So rule out oil.

WMDs, you say? Well, we were mistaken (by we, I mean the west. Face it, we all bought the WMD line, even if you think you didn't.), BUT is it that hard to believe Saddam had these weapons? Saddam, who used mustard gas. Saddam, who spent several years trying to buy radioactive material under the thin disguise of making Atomic power plants? Saddam, who had labs across his country filled with biological materials and books on how to create and breed Anthrax and other bio weapons? Lets see, thats three for three.

Case against Iraq:
1: Saddam was a bastard and his government was corrupt.
2: It is know he used and speculated he had chemical weapons. One of three WMDs. He could easily have hid them from the inspectors and destroyed them during and before the war. Remember the empty missles with hollow sections that could be used for gass attacks?
3: He tried to get some atomic materials. 2 of three WMDs.
4: He had labs to manufacture Anthrax, and any samples he had could have been destoryed. If he had these samples, he could have enough anthrax to make an attack on, say, an embassy, in a week. Three out of three.

Now, I leave you with a question. If Iraq was the big country and the US was the little place, but the countries retained their morals and treatment of people, would we not conside America an angelic little place and Iraq a huge, oppressing, wacko superpower?

-open_sketchbook

A couple of things.

Every time some little Middle-Eastern or African country is being oppressed by a dictator or another country is beating the crap out of them because their leader is a power-crazed, militant maniac, like Saddam, everyone screams at the powerful US to help out. So America goes in, stomps a few asses, gives out a few generators and loses a couple of brave soldiers to cowardly enemy tatics like roadside bombs or shooting Black Hawks. So what does the world do? They get pissed off at the US for deploying military force, even though the people of the country AND the world asked for it! So what is the US to do? If they enter a country, they get yelled at for being warmongering assholes, and if they don't, people whine because they are not helping out! The US can bring huge military power to bear, yet it is unable to use it even when it is to help the people of the country it is involved in! All these little wars America has fought in the 80s and 90s? The US went in after the world and the country requested military aid!

As far as I see it, the power from being an economic and military superpower should be used! Sure, they don't have to be the world police force, but since nobody other than my southern neighbours are going to help these poor oppressed Iraqis, Afganis and whoever else without being first convinced by the US, who is going to do it? Again, as has been stated, the Chinese are too busy with there corner of the world, and the EU is still trying to get their asses in gear and figure out just how much they want to give up for the whole. The US, as a single country, has the advantage that they can always agree to do something, because only one party is involved! The EU can't claim that, can they?

Having a single, mostly moral democratic nation "policing the world" doesn't sound as bad as having nobody to pick up the crap other nations throw at each other, or having a morally mislead nation, or a corrupt commie government, or anything like it, as the "world police", does it?

Now, on to a pressing issue.

Iraq

Now, I'm a Canadian. My government didn't go into Iraq, a good thing too, because Canada is anything but a modern military force. HOWEVER, I completely support America and their allies in the war in Iraq. Here is why.

Iraq was oppressed.
Saddam was killing thousands of his people a year. He was known to have used poison gas against both his military enemies AND his own people. His government was corrupt. He imployed 30% of the countries population, in some way, to support his government rather than using the manpower he was pulling from the pool to create basic (money importing) jobs, and improve his economy. He invaded surronding countries for less reason than the US has used in ANY of their wars. He stole MILLIONS of dollars of aid from other countries, INCLUDING the US, but never even used them himself, never mind his people. His sons were both as evil as he was and it is almost certain one of them would take power after Saddam's death, kill the other, pull a Stalin style purge of the military, kill several thousand people to establish the fact that they wouldn't take any bull, and then kill twice as many people in a couple of years then the war has to get rid of anyone who disagrees or seems too, as well as any group he didn't belong to that he could oppress.
After considering all that, doesn't the war seem more moral?
Saddam needed a good kicking. Everyone knew it, but were too big a pansy to do anything. Along comes George W. Bush, fresh out of another corrupt country who the world had nothing against invading, ready to (hopefully) strike another blow against terrorism, dictators, and other such people. He was a smart enough leader to know that Iraq needed a beatdown and a strong enough leader to follow through with it. Good for him.

Of course, it seems a terror attack like 9/11 only allows one (1) invasion before it becomes invalded, because no sooner had Mr. Bush looked at Iraq and said something along the lines of "That place is pretty f***ed up", groups started yelling at him for being a warmongering Texan. Or, America isn't allowed to help any country which could possibly have oil. Oil? Oil bad. Oil make Americans go crazy. Ugg dislike crazy Texans with guns. As if. America hasn't TOUCHED ANY of Iraq's oil, dispite claims to the contrary. So rule out oil.

WMDs, you say? Well, we were mistaken (by we, I mean the west. Face it, we all bought the WMD line, even if you think you didn't.), BUT is it that hard to believe Saddam had these weapons? Saddam, who used mustard gas. Saddam, who spent several years trying to buy radioactive material under the thin disguise of making Atomic power plants? Saddam, who had labs across his country filled with biological materials and books on how to create and breed Anthrax and other bio weapons? Lets see, thats three for three.

Case against Iraq:
1: Saddam was a bastard and his government was corrupt.
2: It is know he used and speculated he had chemical weapons. One of three WMDs. He could easily have hid them from the inspectors and destroyed them during and before the war. Remember the empty missles with hollow sections that could be used for gass attacks?
3: He tried to get some atomic materials. 2 of three WMDs.
4: He had labs to manufacture Anthrax, and any samples he had could have been destoryed. If he had these samples, he could have enough anthrax to make an attack on, say, an embassy, in a week. Three out of three.

Now, I leave you with a question. If Iraq was the big country and the US was the little place, but the countries retained their morals and treatment of people, would we not conside America an angelic little place and Iraq a huge, oppressing, wacko superpower?


O_O.

Wow...

Why does every say what I think better than I do?

O_O.

Wow...

Why does every say what I think better than I do?


Umm... could you clairify that? You made no sense. :)

Update: I get it!

AND.... bump

Man, how many times has the U.S. come in for the sole purpose of freedom.

Your whole article is totally rediculous.

Do you think people are free in Pakistan? In Indonesia?

What about the poor Sudanese, or the Algerians?

No, my friend, cries for freedom are only heard like that when the U.S. wants them to hear it.

For example, Algeria is not near America nor does it have any oil.

Iraq has an oil supply, which was under the control of an enemy.

Ok, see, Iraq invades Kuwait with American weapons. America, Kuwait being there ally and oil buddy, defends Kuwait, places sanctions on Iraq.

Thats alot of oil now that Iraq cannot sell to America, and alot of oil in which American companies cannot invest in. That matters.

Burma, the Army starts a coup and installs a military dictator.

But who gives a shit about Burma? I mean, it all comes down to THERE interests.

Haiti, no oil, but it's close to the U.S., and countries close to the U.S. have to be kept stable.

"We go in and stomp a few dictator asses" if those dictators arn't our good friends.

And I don't blame them! I mean, I've said it before, if they went off running into everything moraly correct cause, it'd be there own end!

But there not the knights in shinning armour, not in the least.

Hey, guess what, you know Liberia?

When the President went to visit, America stationed 45 marines in the capital city. For some reason, Liberians love americans to the point of madness.

Those forty five marines had the rebels deciding that they should put aside there differences and not embarass each other in front of americans. Those 45 marines, who were not even fighting or policing, just there presence in the city, had the entire civil war stopped cold.

And guess what happened when the President left? Marines went home, civil war.

That's hardly what I would call moraly correct.
Your another victim of blatantly bad American propaganda.

Now, not touching Iraq's oil, true, all to true, but guess who's going to get the devolopement contracts? Guess who? American companies.

And guess who the new president of Iraq will be? It doesn't matter, as long he'll sell out to America.

Do you get Fox news?

As for the U.S., alot of my friends give it thirty years, but all of my friends are completly insane.

Alot of my family gives it 50 years, but I don't think so.

I give it another hundred, in slow decline, until if finally explodes.

Although, I dread the day, because when the U.S. goes, so does Canada.

Hey, I bet you don't even know any Iraqis, do you, union guy?

Now, if any of that insults you, don't take it as such. Just bring it up with me.
None of it was meant as an insult.

Normally, I'd make a big long post in reply to this, but I have a physics exam to study for and a lunch to prepare, so I'd like to say...

I don't know what delusions your under that America is a world leader, as in a trailblazer as previously mentioned. You know, if I remember CORRECTLY (*ahem* I know) Canada was the first to treat African Americans as people, and not as slaves, while people down in Mississipi were obsessed with their freaking cotton plantations... So, you're definitely not a trailblazer in promoting peace, equal rights, and moral highgrounds... To end prejudice.

I mean, this VERY momment, the same thing is occuring with homosexuals. Plenty of you would disagree with me, but it's true to say homosexuals are going through the exact same thing. Canada is currently in the process of LEGALIZING same sex marriage, with a good chance of succeeding (I believe they need 10 undecided votes of 49 to legalize it), while America is steadily stripping away the rights to equal marriage and oppurtunity and rights. Gay people are rejected or discharged from the military, they aren't even receiving the same rights as straight people, nothing is done about hate crimes towards homosexuals (This is a relative statement. Things are done, but they are very minor in comparison. I could get into examples) and hell, George Bush is even going so far as to try and ban any media that tries to display homosexuality in a positive light (Under the false assumption that it's a choice... As if pro-homosexual media will TURN people gay).

My point is, just because you have the biggest guns, doesn't make you a world leader. There are many European countries more suited to that role, with progressive attitudes, along with even Canada... The peaceful country that has all but thrown their arms aside in favour of peacekeeping, and one who promotes equal rights even IF it goes against the opinions of the majority. A world leader does NOT allow minorities to be opressed by majorities, and Canada is a shining example of this, as are many European countries. America? Most definitely not.

Will post my reply later

The question is America a "true world leader". The question is not specific enough. A world leader in what? Democracy? Oil consumption? Large-grossing films?

The US (for the reasons here) has and will weild a huge influence in the world for at least several generations to come. I posit that any rivals (and these are China and the EU, in that order) are at least fifteen years away from coming close to 2000 US levels, much less to US parity in any one of these facets.

Why will it take China so long?
Simply, they're between a rock and a hard place. One they unpeg their currency from the dollar and allow open trade, their economny will suffer.
Further, as the quality of life in parts of China rises, the ideology of Communism becomes harder to maintain.

Why will it take the EU so long?
Europe is not America. As long as there are Germans and Portugese, there will be problems. The EU and modern Europe is a miracle compared to where Europe was in 1905. But eastward expansion, debt recovery, and the environment (esp. in the former Warsaw Pact nations) are big problems. So are rising labor costs. Also, currency opt-outs such as Great Britain and Switzerland complicate the matter.
It will take time for the EU to become a more central government.

1) Economic Strength.
The US is twice the size of the #2 economy, and 85% larger than #5.
1 United States 8,708,870.00
2 Japan 4,395,083.00
3 Germany 2,081,202.00
4 France 1,410,262.00
5 United Kingdom 1,373,612.00
http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html


2) Military Spending
#2 Russia and #3 China combined spend 27% of what the US does.
Overall, the US spends as much as the rest of the planet on defense.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

And the US has been doing about this level of spending since 1941. Needless to say, the US military infrastructure is large, well developed, and diverse. There is also a HUGE reserve of mothballed bases and materials.

3) Population and infrastructure
The US, unlike most other nations, is not a nation whose culture revolves around it's capital. The top 20 US cities rival most nation's capitals in terms of infrastructure, culture, and size. Few other nations boast so many large cities.
No one doubts the greatness of Paris, Vienna, Rome, London, Moscow, etc. But while those cities might rival New York, do Lyon, Graz, Milan, Glasgow, St. Petersberg rival Los Angeles? How about the #3s compared to Chicago?

4) Culture
Simply put, Hollywood accounts for 85% of world marketshare.
http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/paris.html
This is not likely to change, as the US has 15,000 more movie screens than the whole EU, so the US has a huge built in audience.

Factor in that the US also speaks English (which is the language of 4 of the top 20 and 2 of the top 5 world economies), and the US cultural advantage looms larger: Hollywood (as well as the music, book, and other industries) can rake income from Australia, Canada, Great Britain and other nations much easier than say, France or Russia.
The EU lacks a common language, and even China has up to 8 major languages, depending on who does the counting. And (relatively speaking) few people speak Mandarin or Danish outside of their own nations as opposed to English. Spanish is the best case for a rival major language, but no Spanish speaking nation features the US's advantages, and (let's face it) Spanish is also a major language in the US!

5) Representative Government
Before the US, there were none. Being the first modern Rep. Gov't, the US has a special place in world history.

Why will it take the EU so long?
Europe is not America. As long as there are Germans and Portugese, there will be problems. The EU and modern Europe is a miracle compared to where Europe was in 1905. But eastward expansion, debt recovery, and the environment (esp. in the former Warsaw Pact nations) are big problems. So are rising labor costs. Also, currency opt-outs such as Great Britain and Switzerland complicate the matter.
It will take time for the EU to become a more central government.



Why is that the existence of Germans and Portuguese problematic? I am very comfortable with that. I like germans.
And as a federalist, i don't want a bigger more central goverment.. i want to give to Brussels the power they need to make each community in Europe (at a regional level) to be more and more independent.. i say bring the countries of europe down, not to favor the EU central body, but to favor the regions of europe, the lander of germany, the regions of Spain, such as the basques, etc.. offcourse, this will demand giving away some things such as defence to the EU, and to harmonize market rules, but no more than that... hell, now that i think of it, anyone asked Europe if it wants to be the leader of the World? As a European, i am happy to live my life in prosperity, defending my place and working WITH others for the common good.. not leading others for them to follow me..

Switzerland isnt part of the EU.. :)

Both good points.

Now, I'm not trying to make a point with this here, it's just a really good song.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394159

We have to lead someone to be a leader of the free world. I do not believe that we are a leader of the Free World, I think we are a force and power of the Free World. Unless a course if you consider the "coalition of the willing" is the "free world"

man I love me....

Why is that the existence of Germans and Portuguese problematic? I am very comfortable with that. I like germans.

I'm not saying that any specific group is a problem; rather I'm pointing out that the fact that the nationalities of Europe are so diverse are. Americans routintely move from state to state. In general, being American trumps everything else. At this stage of the game, the French still call themselves French first, not Europeans.


And as a federalist, i don't want a bigger more central goverment.. i want to give to Brussels the power they need to make each community in Europe (at a regional level) to be more and more independent..

Which is all fine, but in keeping a more confederated structure versus a "merged" one, it puts the EU at a disadvantage in ever being able to rival the US in many areas.
I'm not saying if this is a good or a bad thing. I'm a Slovak ex-pat. I would hate for Slovak to become a bumpkin dialect, with everyone suddenly speaking only German... or French, or whatever language got adoped as Europe's official one.


i say bring the countries of europe down, not to favor the EU central body, but to favor the regions of europe, the lander of germany, the regions of Spain, such as the basques, etc.. offcourse, this will demand giving away some things such as defence to the EU, and to harmonize market rules, but no more than that... hell, now that i think of it, anyone asked Europe if it wants to be the leader of the World?

But that contradicts what you say above. Even if you break down the nations into smaller states (ie: Normandy as a part of Europe vs. France)... it would concentrate MORE power in Brussels, not less. Paris (or Berlin, or any other Euro Capital) would immediately take on less importance.


As a European, i am happy to live my life in prosperity, defending my place and working WITH others for the common good.. not leading others for them to follow me..

That's a great outlook, but it's not what is at issue. What does Europe do against those whom are not for the common good? (Ie: a certain on trial Jugoslavian?)
Sadly, Europe hasn't dealt with that question very well. I cannot name a single point since the founding of the EU (1950) where it got involved in anything. And I searched http://europa.eu.int !
Also, who's common good? The common good of Poland and Germany don't necessarily overlap in all areas.
To be fair, the EU is a very young organization, and is in a very evolutionary phase. Which is a big reason why it isn't about to rival the US as a superpower any time soon.


Switzerland isnt part of the EU.. :)

That's what I was alluding to... it's a goodly sized European economy that isn't involved.

Man, how many times has the U.S. come in for the sole purpose of freedom.

In my experience, there's never been a sole reason for anything.
BTW, I am going to answer your post, even though it isn't addressed to me. I'm bored at lunch. :)


Do you think people are free in Pakistan? In Indonesia?

Did the US intervene there?
And, yes, they are a whole lot freer than the folks in Chad or China.


What about the poor Sudanese, or the Algerians?

Did the US intervene there? Did anyone else?


No, my friend, cries for freedom are only heard like that when the U.S. wants them to hear it.

Which is a whole lot better than any just about any other nation. Who has France freed in the last thirty years? They had to lose Viet Nam and Algeria the hard way!


For example, Algeria is not near America nor does it have any oil.
And? Are you saying that the US must intervene everywhere?


Iraq has an oil supply, which was under the control of an enemy.

Which the US set up to fight Iran. We are cleaning up our own mess.


Ok, see, Iraq invades Kuwait with American weapons. America, Kuwait being there ally and oil buddy, defends Kuwait, places sanctions on Iraq.

Somewhat misleading. Iraq had *some* American weapons, but mostly Soviet ones.


Thats alot of oil now that Iraq cannot sell to America, and alot of oil in which American companies cannot invest in. That matters.

It's also a lot less pomegranates on the market. So what? Of COURSE oil was a factor.


Burma, the Army starts a coup and installs a military dictator.
But who gives a shit about Burma? I mean, it all comes down to THERE interests.

And what did the rest of the planet do about it?


Haiti, no oil, but it's close to the U.S., and countries close to the U.S. have to be kept stable.

Oh? And just what did the US gain out of South Korea, Viet Nam, or Jugoslavia?


"We go in and stomp a few dictator asses" if those dictators arn't our good friends.
And I don't blame them! I mean, I've said it before, if they went off running into everything moraly correct cause, it'd be there own end!

Actually, we'd be fighting everyone, including ourselves.


But there not the knights in shinning armour, not in the least.

There are none in this world.


Hey, guess what, you know Liberia?

When the President went to visit, America stationed 45 marines in the capital city. For some reason, Liberians love americans to the point of madness.

Please read up on history a little... Liberia was set up as a homeland for ex-slaves from the US that wanted to return to Africa. While it didn't work, that's the reason their capital is Monrovia and their flag looks US-like.
A quick overview is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia


Those forty five marines had the rebels deciding that they should put aside there differences and not embarass each other in front of americans. Those 45 marines, who were not even fighting or policing, just there presence in the city, had the entire civil war stopped cold.
And guess what happened when the President left? Marines went home, civil war.

Yet so many complain that the US is a world cop. Go figure.


Now, not touching Iraq's oil, true, all to true, but guess who's going to get the devolopement contracts? Guess who? American companies.

As will British, Polish and Italian firms. Even Slovakia is getting some work.


And guess who the new president of Iraq will be? It doesn't matter, as long he'll sell out to America.

Not likely. The US had no desire to play "name that President" as it did with South Viet Nam. Make no mistake, the US does not desire an Iraqi puppet regime. But it does want a US friendly one, and a democratic one. And I think the recent election proves the Iraqis at least want the democracy.


Do you get Fox news?

I do not have a television.


As for the U.S., alot of my friends give it thirty years, but all of my friends are completly insane.
Alot of my family gives it 50 years, but I don't think so.
I give it another hundred, in slow decline, until if finally explodes.

Ever read Henry V? "The span of many years in an hourglass."
In my previous post, I laid out why the US is where it is today. It will likely be much the same for quite some time to come.


Although, I dread the day, because when the U.S. goes, so does Canada.

Probably.


None of it was meant as an insult.

Perfect. I hate flaming, too. :)

Are we the leader of the free world?
Free in what sense? Free to become a consumer culture like the US? Or free to control their own destinies? In your role as the 'leader of the free world', you have put dictators into power, overthrowing democratically elected leaders in Guatemala and Chile, supported the Argentine, Paraguayan and Uruguyan military dicatorships, funded Contra terrorism in Nicragua, backed despots like Suharto, and yes, Saddam (until he bit the hand that fed him) and Manuel Noriega (another puppet gone bad).

So leader of the free world? No, not in the sense of bringing freedom...rather, the leader of that part of the world that feels free to do as they wish.

Of the world in general?
Economically, the US is the current powerhouse. Almost every country in the world depends on US investment (though it is possible to live without; just look at Cuba). You have successfully pushed your neoliberal agenda of trade liberalisation on a global level, and affected foreign domestic policies with your aggressive trade agreements. Leader of the world? You have shown us what unbridled greed can do, and how free trade can profit the rich even more, while leaving the poor further, and further behind. Economic leadership, yes, no more...and not necessarily desireable for all that.


Should we be?
You should instead ask, "Why would we want to be?" What the US does, it does to protect its own interests. Do you dare risk expanding that role to include the interests of the wider international community? If you choose to continue to act unilaterally, with only your own desires in mind, you will continue to make enemies, and be considered despotic in your actions. Your safety will continue to be threatened. However, war does wonders for business, and your economy will likely continue to thrive. It's up to you.

Are we the world's police force?
Again, why would you want to be? Currently, you are the US police force, acting internationally when you choose. You intervene here, but not there. Could you really maintain the forces needed to BE a global police force? Unless everyone else was unarmed, I can't see this ever happening. You are a pack of vigilantes, bringing 'American' justice wherever you please. You gain support after the fact, through extensive bullying and coercion. That is because your army just isn't big enough to do the job. Even if you made every one of your citizens a soldier, it wouldn't be. Perhaps you should push instead for a larger, global contingent of fighters...but then you would not longer have your hands on the reins....which most assuredly would not be in US interests.


Does the world need such an entity?
Honestly, I believe it does. We need a new kind of internationalism, one where we intervene in genocide and massacres whether the victims are white, black, asian or arabic...however, we can not allow one or two or even a handful of countries to decide along when this is done. The UN and the power of veto is outdated...it's time for a change.


We seem to be the only country able to step into such a role. China seems preoccupied with it's own corner of the planet, the EU is gaining clout but still lacks cohesion and a single-mindedness that such a role demands.
Single-mindedness requires singularity of purpose, which the US lacks. Your leader is ready, but not all of your citizens support this role. It sets a dangerous precedent when one nation is allowed to interfere with the sovereignty of another nation without consequence. The world came down hard on Saddam when he did this in his invasion of Kuwait. We simply boo the US when they do the same to Iraq, because the world can not go to war against you (nor do we entirely want to). If the EU started intervening where IT chose...if China started 'liberating' Taiwan...chaos of unimaginable proportions would ensue. The majority of the 'powers' realise this. Unilateralism only works when there is no opposition. In your case, the opposition is simply not prepared to take decisive action against you. (I am speaking not of terrorist, but of other developed nations).

Do you really want the EU or China acting unilaterally? I think you would instead prefer they act UNDER your leadership...something else I doubt they are willing to do.


I am a Canadian.

:D

:eek: Wow! Did someone from another country just come up with a pro-USA statement? i diddnt even know that people outside of the US supported (or at least have anything bad to say about) the US. :) You just made my day! :D

Did you say you are from panama or the US
He's American, living in Panama.

Case against Iraq:
1: Saddam was a bastard and his government was corrupt.
2: It is know he used and speculated he had chemical weapons. One of three WMDs. He could easily have hid them from the inspectors and destroyed them during and before the war. Remember the empty missles with hollow sections that could be used for gass attacks?
3: He tried to get some atomic materials. 2 of three WMDs.
4: He had labs to manufacture Anthrax, and any samples he had could have been destoryed. If he had these samples, he could have enough anthrax to make an attack on, say, an embassy, in a week. Three out of three.

As a fellow Canadian, I'm glad that you have shown people that not all Canadians are leftist or against the U.S.

That being said:
1. The US ushered Saddam into power. You think he wasn't crazy back then? Perhaps the Americans should pick their puppets with more care.
2. WMDs...no proof. None. Not a shred. Try again.
3. Hey, Pakistan had a military coup, then got nuclear weapons. Why didn't that scare the US into invading? North Korea is rumoured to have nuclear capabilities. Hey, I could run around trying to get atomic materials too...doesn't mean I'd be successful. Would you have the US invade Canada?
4. People in the US are able to manufacture anthrax quite easily...don't you remember the big scare of letters being sent with anthrax in them? LET'S INVADE THE US!

By the way, how do you justify all the other dictatorships installed and supported by the US? "Oh, the people (rich or American) asked them to!" Oh...nice.

As a fellow Canadian, I'm glad that you have shown people that not all Canadians are leftist or against the U.S.

That being said:
1. The US ushered Saddam into power. You think he wasn't crazy back then? Perhaps the Americans should pick their puppets with more care.
2. WMDs...no proof. None. Not a shred. Try again.
3. Hey, Pakistan had a military coup, then got nuclear weapons. Why didn't that scare the US into invading? North Korea is rumoured to have nuclear capabilities. Hey, I could run around trying to get atomic materials too...doesn't mean I'd be successful. Would you have the US invade Canada?
4. People in the US are able to manufacture anthrax quite easily...don't you remember the big scare of letters being sent with anthrax in them? LET'S INVADE THE US!

By the way, how do you justify all the other dictatorships installed and supported by the US? "Oh, the people (rich or American) asked them to!" Oh...nice.


I'll answer these...

1. Sure he was crazy. But it was either him, or the crazy ayatollah in Iran. At least Saddam didn't hate us then.
2. He did have WMD's. Sure, not when we invaded, but you people make it sound like he never gassed the Iranians and the Kurds(Iran is also the country with the second-most amount of WMD related deaths, second only to Japan.
3. Difference is... Pakistan is a U.S. supporter. They have been for a looooooooong time. Not to mention, they didn't directly mess with our interests(so what if that makes us sound greedy? No other country would invade unless their interests were threatened.) Why did we invade Iraq instead of North Korea? Good question. It woulda made ALOT more sense(and no, we did not invade because we thought the N. Koreans could defeat our army, like alot of people are saying).
4. The difference is, we haven't created chemical/biological agents for warfare since the 50's. Also, we wouldn't use WMD's unless it could save more lives that it would take(example: Japan). Also, no one knows who sent the Anthrax letters. It could be an Iraqi, a Frenchmen, a Brazilian, a South African, an Australian, a Canadian...

While I do not agree with dictatorships, sometimes there is no other options. You think that alot of dictatorships didn't try democracy? Sure they did. It's just they weren't stable enough, and it took a Dictator to take everything under control. Example: Panama. First, there was a democratic government where every 3 years there would be a military coup and a dictator would be instated. Then the Dictatorships would be overthrown because they were crappy to the people. Then Omar Torrijos came and worked wonders on Panama. He stabilized the country. Then Noriega came, de-stabilized it a bit, but then he was overthrown. Then we come. kick our Noriega, the Panamanians have a free elections, and voila; a progressive member of the Central American community is born.

In my experience, there's never been a sole reason for anything.
BTW, I am going to answer your post, even though it isn't addressed to me. I'm bored at lunch. :)

Exactly my point.

Did the US intervene there?
And, yes, they are a whole lot freer than the folks in Chad or China.

What are you talking about?

Did the US intervene there? Did anyone else?

Again, that's my point.

Which is a whole lot better than any just about any other nation. Who has France freed in the last thirty years? They had to lose Viet Nam and Algeria the hard way!

So what? Where talking about the U.S. Who have they freed? They've invaded alot of people, but who have they freed?

And? Are you saying that the US must intervene everywhere?

No, if you actually read what I wrote, I brought that up.

Which the US set up to fight Iran. We are cleaning up our own mess.

Yes, true. Mess that hurts you and no one else. I'd call that smart, not morally correct.


Somewhat misleading. Iraq had *some* American weapons, but mostly Soviet ones.

True. But all Iraq's chemical weapons were from the States.

It's also a lot less pomegranates on the market. So what? Of COURSE oil was a factor.

Again, that's my point.

And what did the rest of the planet do about it?

Nothing. Your the only people in the world who say that you solve shit and spread freedom. You took up the duty yourself, not us, and we did not make you do it. The propaganda of the past comes back swinging, eh?

Oh? And just what did the US gain out of South Korea, Viet Nam, or Jugoslavia?

South Korea:At the time, this was just Korea. It was communist, the United States was trying to end the Domino Effect which it thought would destroy the united states.

Vietnam:At the time, Vietnam was communist. It was trying to end the "Domino effect" which it thought would destroy the united states.

Jugoslavia? If you mean Yugoslavia, to ensure there would not be a resurgence of the communist goverment, and to spread there influence into eastern Europe.

Actually, we'd be fighting everyone, including ourselves.

There you go.

There are none in this world.

And consequently, the United States is not one.

Please read up on history a little... Liberia was set up as a homeland for ex-slaves from the US that wanted to return to Africa. While it didn't work, that's the reason their capital is Monrovia and their flag looks US-like.
A quick overview is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

I knew that. But might I ask what does that matter? Why should they love the United States for that? Love them just because the decided that they'ed be nice to you and let you go back to a place that was sort of like the home they kidnapped you from in the first place?

Would you love someone for that? Sure, you'd be happy, but would you love them for that? I sure as hell wouldn't. There love for americans is to me, an inigma.

Yet so many complain that the US is a world cop. Go figure.

The Liberians WANTED them there.

As will British, Polish and Italian firms. Even Slovakia is getting some work.

All people who supported Messa Bush.

Not likely. The US had no desire to play "name that President" as it did with South Viet Nam. Make no mistake, the US does not desire an Iraqi puppet regime. But it does want a US friendly one, and a democratic one. And I think the recent election proves the Iraqis at least want the democracy.

On the contrary. The U.S. would love a puppet regime. However, there main concern was making the oil run smoothly out of Iraq, whichever way didn't really care. But, if they installed an dictator, that would be hypocritical, as "The Terrorists" are the enemies of democary(replacing the soviets) and to fight tyrany with tyrany would not look good at all. In fact, it would make them look terribly hypocritical. So that is out of the question. The bettert thing to do would be to set up a "democracy" in Iraq, a shinning beacon of freedom for the middle east(or something)

So they have there little election. But, they don't want Islamists or socialists to win, what a disaster that would be!
But they barely have to worry about them.

A) Iraqis are not used to voting, and all there previous experiences with this,well, not turn out right. Vote against the guy who controlls the army, you dead mofo, you and your family. Who has the army in Iraq? The U.S. So naturaly they will be more than inclined to vote for the U.S. endorsed candidate.

B) Despite the rules making this illegal, the U.S. endorsed boy has more media coverage than any other party.

C) Not voting. First reason: Alot of people can't leave the lineup for food, leave work, or walk far enough to get to the polls. Second reason: The U.S. guy will win regardless, what the hell's the point? THere not going to let him lose, it's all been seen before.Third reason:Fear of attacks by guerillas on the polls.

D) Who's counting the ballots? The U.S. So does it matter if someone else actually won?

And there you have it.

As you put it, they've played and won a game of name the president.



I do not have a television.

I wasn't talking to you, so......But you don't have a television? Really? I'd much rather have a television than a computer.

Ever read Henry V? "The span of many years in an hourglass."
In my previous post, I laid out why the US is where it is today. It will likely be much the same for quite some time to come.

Can't say I've read it. I read your post, well written, but I still believe what I believe.

Probably.

Very very likely, or at least years and years of civil war, unless we devolop a China under Mao type nationalism.

Perfect. I hate flaming, too. :)


That's nice, but I still wasn't talking to you.

But I had fun anyway. Fun too talk too you, man.

And, again, not trying to make a point, but listen to this song and tell me that it's not catchy.

Huh? Huh?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394159

*snip*

These things that you have outlined: that dictator was better than the other, that country supports us, but that one doesn't, and so on....I'm glad you admit that the U.S works in its own interests. Now why can't the US government just admit that? Don't pretend you are out there to 'protect' the world, or 'police it' or 'bring it freedom'. You aren't. Those are not your goals. Those are incidental things that may (but more often not) occur when the US pursues its interests internationally. You aren't a role model, you are a lone gunman acting for reasons that are personal, not altruistic.

By the way, Guatemala and Chile elected their leaders....and the US had them murdered, and installed brutal dictatorships that killed hundreds of thousands of people (more in Guatemala than in Chile). Was that better than the semi-socialist ELECTED governments would have been? Ask my husband, whose uncle was tortured, mutilated, and dumped into the ocean by Pinochet's thugs.

THEN talk to me about "liberation".

Being the world's self-appointed policeman would appeal to Americans - after all, nobody loves a cop.

You're not true world leaders. A leader takes care of his or her people. America is only interested in its' "interests", not in people. Not foreign people, anyway.

We'd all be much obliged if you'd go back to being just plain ol' disinterested in the rest of the world...you know, isolationist, like you used to be. weren't you all happier with that equation, anyway?

I know we were.

Being the world's self-appointed policeman would appeal to Americans - after all, nobody loves a cop.

You're not true world leaders. A leader takes care of his or her people. America is only interested in its' "interests", not in people. Not foreign people, anyway.

We'd all be much obliged if you'd go back to being just plain ol' disinterested in the rest of the world...you know, isolatinist, like you used to be. weren't you all happier with that equation, anyway?

I know we were.


We're just doing what's in our own selfish interests, like everyone else, except that we have this ability to squash virtually any country with our military.

God knows that if any of you had that ability, you would probably be doing stupid invasions at the drop of a hat as well.

I'd like that last bit in writing, so that the next time Europe gets in trouble, we can just laugh and eat popcorn while we watch the subjugation on television.

We're just doing what's in our own selfish interests, like everyone else, except that we have this ability to squash virtually any country with our military.

God knows that if any of you had that ability, you would probably be doing stupid invasions at the drop of a hat as well.

I'd like that last bit in writing, so that the next time Europe gets in trouble, we can just laugh and eat popcorn while we watch the subjugation on television.
How about the next time Canada gets invaded, since Dobbs and I are both Canadian?

Yeah..I can see it now...China launches an attack on Canada and the US just sits back, sulking because we didn't support you in Iraq.

Well, I won't hold my breath for that one.

We're just doing what's in our own selfish interests, like everyone else, except that we have this ability to squash virtually any country with our military.

God knows that if any of you had that ability, you would probably be doing stupid invasions at the drop of a hat as well.

I'd like that last bit in writing, so that the next time Europe gets in trouble, we can just laugh and eat popcorn while we watch the subjugation on television.

Of course, we conveniently ignore the fact that Russia did every bit as much as America in World War 2, and that America entered after the losing battle was back to a near even conflict, not before. America wasn't some angel of mercy. Germany would have lost anyways, America just accelerated the process.

The Red Army would have rolled right over Berlin, with British and Canadian troops supporting.

These things that you have outlined: that dictator was better than the other, that country supports us, but that one doesn't, and so on....I'm glad you admit that the U.S works in its own interests. Now why can't the US government just admit that? Don't pretend you are out there to 'protect' the world, or 'police it' or 'bring it freedom'. You aren't. Those are not your goals. Those are incidental things that may (but more often not) occur when the US pursues its interests internationally. You aren't a role model, you are a lone gunman acting for reasons that are personal, not altruistic.

By the way, Guatemala and Chile elected their leaders....and the US had them murdered, and installed brutal dictatorships that killed hundreds of thousands of people (more in Guatemala than in Chile). Was that better than the semi-socialist ELECTED governments would have been? Ask my husband, whose uncle was tortured, mutilated, and dumped into the ocean by Pinochet's thugs.

THEN talk to me about "liberation".


As you said yourself..we were acting in our interests. Yes, life's a bitch. But that's the fact. Guatemala and Chile had democratically elected, governments. What was wrong with them? They didn't support our interests. And while WE didn't kill them(the guy before Pinochet commited suicide instead of being captured by Pinochets thugs), they were deposed by our supporters. Yes, I am ashamed that we choose such violent minions, but that's life.

I hate how people think we should "police" the world. Sure, we did in the Cold War, because they WANTED us too! When the British were the superpower, did they police the world? Hell no! They burned countries to the ground, enslaved peoples, and molded the world into their own image. Did the Soviets? Please, all they did was enslave, torture, and rule with an Iron Fist.

And Did I ever speak of "liberation"? Even if I didn't, world politics aren't black and white. There is a large shade of grey in-between. While putting Pinochet in power wasn't the most humanitarian thing to do, right next door was an anti-U.S. Argentinia. What was next to Iraq? Iran. What was next to Afghanistan? The Soviet Union. What was next to Israel? Syria. All of our actions are meant to counter-ballance another. It used to be that we were fighting for our own selves(back in the 1890's and the 1900's), but then we had to get involved in the "Great Democratic Crusade". Bah! While I think that we shouldn't just invade everyone, I believe that we should focus on our OWN interests. The E.U. is more than willing to go solve all the world's problems. Let's get back to building up our Massive Industrial Machine, Arms Industry, Technology Industry, and the Military, and let the world solve its OWN problems.

Of course, thats just my opinion. I hardly represent the rest of America...

*snip*

Well we agree on that much at least...that the US should worry about itself. I would prefer that to mean non-intervention, however, but I don't see that happening either. The US will continue to mold the world in the image it wants for as long as it has the power to do so. No offense, but doing so only gains you enemies, and you will continue to be a target of anger, resentment, and yes, terror because of it.

Well we agree on that much at least...that the US should worry about itself. I would prefer that to mean non-intervention, however, but I don't see that happening either. The US will continue to mold the world in the image it wants for as long as it has the power to do so. No offense, but doing so only gains you enemies, and you will continue to be a target of anger, resentment, and yes, terror because of it.

Eh, but what can we do? It comes with the territory.

Also, it will bring us puppets, wealth, power, dominions....

Eh, but what can we do? It comes with the territory.

Also, it will bring us puppets, wealth, power, dominions....
As long as you're willing to take the bad with the good...

Eh, but what can we do? It comes with the territory.



It's not as though it has to, though. I've heard this same line many times in the last six months or so...basically, that if America is destined to be a de facto empire, or indeed that it already is one, then it's only just that America make the same mistakes as, and be plagued with similar problems to, all the empires that went before.

Feh. This is small-minded parochialism inflated like a balloon. History isn't just a random collection of things that happened to other people a long time ago, it's a living document written for the express purpose of learning from past mistakes. As nearly as I can make it out, Americans have long since made up their minds to conclude that there's precious little of import to this whole History shizzizzle.

I suggested to JohnBrowning recently that there is a unique opportunity for America, right here and right now. They could choose to use their current position and power to lead the world by example (ironically, they've had this option since WWII), and use history to forgo all the needless pain, misery and suffering inflicted on the rest of the species by a continuous chain of human empires by acting out of character for an empire - by acknowledging and addressing, in a fair and equitable way, the impact that an American empire has/would have on the other nations, peoples, and individuals of the world...rather than fixating exclusively on 'american interests'.

Maybe that sounds too pie-in-the-sky for some of you. But you must admit, a human empire that tries to look out for the interests of all people would definitely score a lofty place in the History books. The usual, run-of-the-mill empire, with all its' corruption, backroom-dealing, and bread & circuses is worth no more than a footnote.

Well, it started out well, sponsoring the start of the United Nations and all that.

But there was that simultaneous start with nuking Japan.

Everything has a bicameral nature (big systems especially). You have a big empire, and it may mean to do good ("let's promote democracy!") but it will go about it in the wrong way ("first we'll invade on a false pretext, then we'll bomb, then fight an insurgency, then hold elections and claim victory").

They say that Hitler got the trains to run on time. Unfortunately, some of them went to the death camps.

America has no right to be the world's police. They'd be a corrupt police 'protecting' countries that have oil. Lets take a look at Irag shall we. They torture prisoners without even a trial- Guantanamo Bay. They arrest people for talking against the government too much. They have an incredibly arrogant attitude that everything they do is right.
They seem to think they can attack countries that have weapons of destruction, when I have no doubt America has some of it's own. Theyd be happy to send weapons inspectors to Korea, but imagine if Korea asked to return the favour. Oh yes, everyone can see how just Americans are.

No. We didnt elect a world leader and I was going to have one Id asked for someone who knew that Wales, wasnt part of america (e.g. Looked at a map occasionly), knew a bit of the Englsih language and had actually an apreciation for the existance of non-Americans.


Edit: Forgot to mention that America also doesnt bother with the environment and still refuses to sign the KYTO agreement. They waste far more litres of water per person than any other country. When I was an Arizona everyone used a tumble dryer. IN ARIZONA! It was flipping 50 degrees and they used a tumble dryer. No if you are going lead the world Id also like you to care about it.

Yeah, Morindor!

And they were one of the last countries to set off atomic bomb tests in the open ocean!

Yeah!

And they hunted down and killed Greenpeace protesters, and sank their ship!

Yeah!

Oooops! Sorry, that was the French!

A couple of things.

Every time some little Middle-Eastern or African country is being oppressed by a dictator or another country is beating the crap out of them because their leader is a power-crazed, militant maniac, like Saddam, everyone screams at the powerful US to help out. So America goes in, stomps a few asses, gives out a few generators and loses a couple of brave soldiers to cowardly enemy tatics like roadside bombs or shooting Black Hawks. So what does the world do? They get pissed off at the US for deploying military force, even though the people of the country AND the world asked for it! So what is the US to do? If they enter a country, they get yelled at for being warmongering assholes, and if they don't, people whine because they are not helping out! The US can bring huge military power to bear, yet it is unable to use it even when it is to help the people of the country it is involved in! All these little wars America has fought in the 80s and 90s? The US went in after the world and the country requested military aid!

Everyone, the word you highlighted, meaning who? We are not hearing any screams at the moment from anywhere, for the US to do anything about the Ruling Family in Saudi Arabia, or about Zimbabwe, are we? Everybody appears to mean some group of Americans, who cause a ruckus in the US internal press. Either that or some lobbyists in Washington working for those who have financial interests at risk or to be gained. The US interferes in another countries internal politics, in a manner that the US would find unacceptable if another country did it to the US itself, and then is surprised when the international community complains. All these little wars in the 80s and 90s are not the issue here it is the war in Afghanistan and Iraq that are the issue, where the USA was not invited nor was intervention requested by the international community. In the later military intervention was clearly and expressly excluded. If you want to create an apologist position, then please try to support the rhetoric with some content.

As far as I see it, the power from being an economic and military superpower should be used! Sure, they don't have to be the world police force, but since nobody other than my southern neighbours are going to help these poor oppressed Iraqis, Afganis and whoever else without being first convinced by the US, who is going to do it? Again, as has been stated, the Chinese are too busy with there corner of the world, and the EU is still trying to get their asses in gear and figure out just how much they want to give up for the whole. The US, as a single country, has the advantage that they can always agree to do something, because only one party is involved! The EU can't claim that, can they?

How is having only one party involved an advantage when it comes to making intelligent considered and reasonable decisions? I know you did not qualify the type of decision and therin lies the problem.
By analogy with your argument, Jevorn Kearse has every right to tell you how to live, in your house. He is bigger, more powerful and wealthier than you are (The first two are pretty certain, the last just highly probable). If you agree that he has this right, then you can sustain that the US has this right, however, as is probable, you would deny that anyone has the right to tell you how to live your lifew in the privacy of your own home, then you would have to concede that the US does not have this right either.
The single party aspect of US foreign policy making is one of the most worrying aspects of the whole situation. It is not that the average, reasonable person, has any influence on US foreign policy whatsoever. This privelege is restricted to the presidential advisers. In the EU, as foreign policy is a highly significant factor in the elections in individual states, the general opinion is much more influential.

Having a single, mostly moral democratic nation "policing the world" doesn't sound as bad as having nobody to pick up the crap other nations throw at each other, or having a morally mislead nation, or a corrupt commie government, or anything like it, as the "world police", does it?

On what basis do yopu judge the US to be mostly moral????? By what they say, or by what they do. Or even by the concordance between what they say and what they do. By any of these standards it is hard to judge the USA to be mostly moral at the moment. Mostly self interested any money-grubbing liers would be a better description given the recent moral history of the USA. Democratic, as I have said several times, is just a name for a system, which may be better than others but is far from perfect and is no guarantee of anything.

Now, on to a pressing issue.

Iraq

Now, I'm a Canadian. My government didn't go into Iraq, a good thing too, because Canada is anything but a modern military force. HOWEVER, I completely support America and their allies in the war in Iraq. Here is why.

Iraq was oppressed.
Saddam was killing thousands of his people a year. He was known to have used poison gas against both his military enemies AND his own people. His government was corrupt. He imployed 30% of the countries population, in some way, to support his government rather than using the manpower he was pulling from the pool to create basic (money importing) jobs, and improve his economy. He invaded surronding countries for less reason than the US has used in ANY of their wars. He stole MILLIONS of dollars of aid from other countries, INCLUDING the US, but never even used them himself, never mind his people. His sons were both as evil as he was and it is almost certain one of them would take power after Saddam's death, kill the other, pull a Stalin style purge of the military, kill several thousand people to establish the fact that they wouldn't take any bull, and then kill twice as many people in a couple of years then the war has to get rid of anyone who disagrees or seems too, as well as any group he didn't belong to that he could oppress.
After considering all that, doesn't the war seem more moral?
Saddam needed a good kicking. Everyone knew it, but were too big a pansy to do anything. Along comes George W. Bush, fresh out of another corrupt country who the world had nothing against invading, ready to (hopefully) strike another blow against terrorism, dictators, and other such people. He was a smart enough leader to know that Iraq needed a beatdown and a strong enough leader to follow through with it. Good for him.

The whole set of arguments you present against Sadam can also be used against many other regimes around the world. Notably in China, for example. Now no-one here is arguing that Sadam was a good guy, and that the Iraqi people were not oppressed etc.
What they are arguing is what business was it of the USAs? The answer to this is a flat none. The people of Iraq had not asked for USA help, the international bodies had specifically refused USA help.
G.W. Bush was, and probably still is, too narrow visioned to see the impact that his actions would have, are having and will have on the image of the USA . If that makes him a smart leader then so be it, but it does not IMO.

Of course, it seems a terror attack like 9/11 only allows one (1) invasion before it becomes invalded, because no sooner had Mr. Bush looked at Iraq and said something along the lines of "That place is pretty f***ed up", groups started yelling at him for being a warmongering Texan. Or, America isn't allowed to help any country which could possibly have oil. Oil? Oil bad. Oil make Americans go crazy. Ugg dislike crazy Texans with guns. As if. America hasn't TOUCHED ANY of Iraq's oil, dispite claims to the contrary. So rule out oil.

The 9/11 attack justifies any and all actions that prevent any such further atrocity occurring. The problem is that 9/11 simply was not related to Iraq. To Afghanistan yes, hence no international outcry against what was perceived as a justified action. There was no evidence of any connection between Iraq and 9/11 so to use 9/11 here is simply ridiculous.
The issue of Iraqi oil. Iraq was to be allowed to return to selling its oil if the UN inspectors did not find any WMDs. And guess what, they were going to sell oil in Euros, not US$. A minor point, but an absolutely critical one to the US economy. The US could not afford to let this happen. The US does not threaten to invade Saudi Arabia, as the Saudis are happy to sell in US$, the same with Nigeria (A lovely peace loving democratic neck of the woods there).
No, the IUS was never going to "steal" the oil, but it did want to control who sold the oil and in what currency.

WMDs, you say? Well, we were mistaken (by we, I mean the west. Face it, we all bought the WMD line, even if you think you didn't.), BUT is it that hard to believe Saddam had these weapons? Saddam, who used mustard gas. Saddam, who spent several years trying to buy radioactive material under the thin disguise of making Atomic power plants? Saddam, who had labs across his country filled with biological materials and books on how to create and breed Anthrax and other bio weapons? Lets see, thats three for three.

Here is the point that prompted me to reply. I NEVER bought the WMD line, nor did many others that I know. It was discussed as being a convenient excuse. If the WMD line had been serious, then the UN inspectors would have been allowed time by the USA to finish their task. They were not, hence no real WMD threat.
Labs and books, hum, looked at any university lately? Iraq did have some of those you know, no you probably didn't. They are full of labs and books. Oh, and biological materials as well. Oh dear we had better invade any country that has a university. Sadam used mustard gas, the US used agent orange, all sides in WWI used mustard gas etc. No Sadam was/is not a nice guy, but a few books, biological materials, and chemistry laboratories do not make WMDs.

Case against Iraq:
1: Saddam was a bastard and his government was corrupt.
2: It is know he used and speculated he had chemical weapons. One of three WMDs. He could easily have hid them from the inspectors and destroyed them during and before the war. Remember the empty missles with hollow sections that could be used for gass attacks?
3: He tried to get some atomic materials. 2 of three WMDs.
4: He had labs to manufacture Anthrax, and any samples he had could have been destoryed. If he had these samples, he could have enough anthrax to make an attack on, say, an embassy, in a week. Three out of three.

1. True. But also true of almost every country in the world. Politicians are, by there nature, bastards, and power corrupts.
2. a) he had, in the past used chemical weapons, so has the UK, the USA, Russia, Germany, France, etc. etc.
b) Speculation is not admissable evidence. Strike one for WMDs
3. He tried and failed, not weapons grade material in the first place. Strike two fro WMDs
4. a)Any country in the world has labs capable of breeding anthrax (It is a bacteria that is easily cultured)
b) Speculation is not admissable evidence. Strike three and out for WMDs


Now, I leave you with a question. If Iraq was the big country and the US was the little place, but the countries retained their morals and treatment of people, would we not conside America an angelic little place and Iraq a huge, oppressing, wacko superpower?


Who is representing Iraq as having been angelic. No-one. Yes we would consider any country doing what the USA did as a huge, oppressing, wacko superpower. Which is exactly the image the USA has at the moment.

Alexias, note that I've left some of my post in with your quote for clarity's sake.


Which is a whole lot better than any just about any other nation. Who has France freed in the last thirty years? They had to lose Viet Nam and Algeria the hard way!

So what? Where talking about the U.S. Who have they freed? They've invaded alot of people, but who have they freed?
Since 1950:
Poland, East Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Jugoslavia (et al), Romania, Bulgaria, and all of the former USSR.
South Korea
Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti
Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq

You may find this interesting: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110005504

Which the US set up to fight Iran. We are cleaning up our own mess.
Yes, true. Mess that hurts you and no one else. I'd call that smart, not morally correct.
Tell that to all the Iraqis Saddam killed. It isn't morally correct to get clean up a bad situation one caused? :confused:

Somewhat misleading. Iraq had *some* American weapons, but mostly Soviet ones.
True. But all Iraq's chemical weapons were from the States.
FALSE!
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html
"it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out"

In fact, most of Iraq's chemical weapons were *not* of US origin!

And what did the rest of the planet do about it?

Nothing. Your the only people in the world who say that you solve shit and spread freedom. You took up the duty yourself, not us, and we did not make you do it. The propaganda of the past comes back swinging, eh?

The US is certainly *not* the only nation that gets involved when things go badly, but it does so more often, and more consistently than others. The French having 4000 troops in Ivory Coast is good, but why do they have only 500 in Afghanistan? CANADA dwarfs them!
Where the HECK were the Chinese during the tsunami disaster? They kept their fleet (the largest in the region, after the US) IN DOCK! :(

Oh? And just what did the US gain out of South Korea, Viet Nam, or Jugoslavia?

South Korea:At the time, this was just Korea. It was communist, the United States was trying to end the Domino Effect which it thought would destroy the united states.

Vietnam:At the time, Vietnam was communist. It was trying to end the "Domino effect" which it thought would destroy the united states.

Jugoslavia? If you mean Yugoslavia, to ensure there would not be a resurgence of the communist goverment, and to spread there influence into eastern Europe.

**WRONG**. North Korea invaded (free) South Korea! Korea had been partitioned for 5 YEARS at the time.
**WRONG**. North Viet Nam was Communist. South Viet Nam was not. The US President Kennedy got involved specifically to keep France in NATO. Fat lot of good that did.
**WRONG** Try ethnic cleansing and genocide. There was NO Communist government in sight!! And, btw, Jugoslavia is a perfectly acceptable spelling.

Please read up on history a little... Liberia was set up as a homeland for ex-slaves from the US that wanted to return to Africa. While it didn't work, that's the reason their capital is Monrovia and their flag looks US-like.
A quick overview is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

I knew that. But might I ask what does that matter? Why should they love the United States for that? Love them just because the decided that they'ed be nice to you and let you go back to a place that was sort of like the home they kidnapped you from in the first place?

Why do the Quebecois like France?

Would you love someone for that? Sure, you'd be happy, but would you love them for that? I sure as hell wouldn't. There love for americans is to me, an inigma.

The Liberians WANTED them there.

Love them just because the decided that they'ed be nice to you and let you go back to a place that was sort of like the home they kidnapped you from in the first place?

Er, HELPED them set up a new nation. And slavery in the US existed for hundreds of years BEFORE there was a US, thanks to England, France, Spain, Holland, and Portugal.
Oh, and the Africans themselves, whom sold rival tribes to the whites.

Did they ask officially?

As will British, Polish and Italian firms. Even Slovakia is getting some work.

All people who supported Messa Bush.

Well of course! Do you see the Taleban giving Canada any money? :rolleyes:

Not likely. The US had no desire to play "name that President" as it did with South Viet Nam. Make no mistake, the US does not desire an Iraqi puppet regime. But it does want a US friendly one, and a democratic one. And I think the recent election proves the Iraqis at least want the democracy.

On the contrary. The U.S. would love a puppet regime. However, there main concern was making the oil run smoothly out of Iraq, whichever way didn't really care. But, if they installed an dictator, that would be hypocritical, as "The Terrorists" are the enemies of democary(replacing the soviets) and to fight tyrany with tyrany would not look good at all. In fact, it would make them look terribly hypocritical. So that is out of the question. The bettert thing to do would be to set up a "democracy" in Iraq, a shinning beacon of freedom for the middle east(or something)


You're cynical, so there's little point debating this point.

So they have there little election. But, they don't want Islamists or socialists to win, what a disaster that would be!
But they barely have to worry about them.

A) Iraqis are not used to voting, and all there previous experiences with this,well, not turn out right. Vote against the guy who controlls the army, you dead mofo, you and your family. Who has the army in Iraq? The U.S. So naturaly they will be more than inclined to vote for the U.S. endorsed candidate.

B) Despite the rules making this illegal, the U.S. endorsed boy has more media coverage than any other party.

C) Not voting. First reason: Alot of people can't leave the lineup for food, leave work, or walk far enough to get to the polls. Second reason: The U.S. guy will win regardless, what the hell's the point? THere not going to let him lose, it's all been seen before.Third reason:Fear of attacks by guerillas on the polls.

D) Who's counting the ballots? The U.S. So does it matter if someone else actually won?

As you put it, they've played and won a game of name the president.

Um... you do know that the Iraqis themselves want it, right?
A, B) Please send me the link of US endorsed candidates.
C) A 60% turnout beats this arguement.
D) Um, actually no. Not only did the Iraqis provide most of the security, but the IECI is doing the counting. It has no Americans.

The IECI? the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq.
http://www.uniraq.org/elections/faq.asp and
http://www.unicwash.org/news/news_15dECEMBERiRAQUPDATE.html

They have? Who is it? Or is it just whomever wins? (If so, that's just being a spoil-sport...)


I do not have a television.

I wasn't talking to you, so......But you don't have a television? Really? I'd much rather have a television than a computer.
Nope. I do not want my empTy Vee. :D


Ever read Henry V? "The span of many years in an hourglass."
In my previous post, I laid out why the US is where it is today. It will likely be much the same for quite some time to come.

Can't say I've read it. I read your post, well written, but I still believe what I believe.

And that's perfectly fine, and I of course don't begrudge you your opinions. I also enjoyed your posts... they're more lucid than most. :)
I do think you might be painting with too wide a brush, tho...

Alexias, note that I've left some of my post in with your quote for clarity's sake.

I'm sorry, I am terrible with computers. How is that done?

Since 1950:
Poland, East Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Jugoslavia (et al), Romania, Bulgaria, and all of the former USSR.
South Korea
Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti
Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq

You may find this interesting: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110005504

Poland-Freed themselves. The words solidarity movement ring a bell?
East Germany-They gave up communism due to immenent popular revolt and to save there economy.
Czech Republic-Freed themselves. Communist Strike sound familiar?
Slovakia-Again, just them....(Prague Spring?)
Hungary-I can't say I remember that, do tell.
Yugoslavia-Never answered to Russia, the leader died of old age plunging the country into anarchy.
Bulgaria-Do tell.
Romania-popular revolt
Former USSR(this could take a while)
Lativia-Sceded
Estonia-Sceded
Lativia-Sceded
Lithuania-Sceded
Moldovia-Sceded
Ukraine-Sceded
Georgia-Sceded
Armenia-Sceded
Azerbijan-Sceded
Turkmenistan-Sceded
Uzbekistan-Sceded
Tajikistan-Sceded
Kyrgyzstan-Sceded
Kazakhstan-Sceded

Sorry, I don't remember any great United States invasion freeing ANY of the Soviet Bloc Republics.

Think about it, if they did, do you think they would have not nuked everything? I doubt it.

U.S.S.R. came down on it's own, sorry buddy.

South Korea-No, it was Korea, I'm quite certain of that. Sure, there was civil war, but there was a united Korea.

Grenada? I'd can't remember.

Panama? Yes, you freed them from a U.S. installed dictator, to whose atrocities(and drug rings) you turned a blind eye to. It was only when he decided he no longer wanted to be a puppet president that the U.S. got rid of him.

Nicaragua? I can't remember.

Haiti-They stopped it from collasping into anarchy and civil war, yes, but they didn't exactly free it. They were just about to take care of that themselves.

Kuwait.
For yourselves, but yes.

Afghanistan-For yourselves, yes again, I give you that.

Iraq-Yes, for yourselves.

Tell that to all the Iraqis Saddam killed. It isn't morally correct to get clean up a bad situation one caused? :confused:

As I said, a mess that hurts you and no one else. America installed the Shah of Iran, popular revolt destroys the Shah, the Iranians hate America.

And so you strengthen Hussein to fight Iran. I ask again, how is that morally correct?

And that's not just my feeling. I know Iraqis who've had family members murdered by the secret police, who've had dissapeared after getting in El Presidente's way. They don't appreciate America's strengthening of President Hussein at all.


FALSE!
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html
"it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out"

In fact, most of Iraq's chemical weapons were *not* of US origin!

Perhaps not invented by the U.S., perhaps not even manufactured completly by the U.S, but you sold them, and the material he would need to make them, to him, knowing full well what his plans were.

The US is certainly *not* the only nation that gets involved when things go badly, but it does so more often, and more consistently than others. The French having 4000 troops in Ivory Coast is good, but why do they have only 500 in Afghanistan? CANADA dwarfs them!
Where the HECK were the Chinese during the tsunami disaster? They kept their fleet (the largest in the region, after the US) IN DOCK! :(

All these countries affected are heavily invested in by U.S. companies for cheap manufacturing. Therefore, they obviously wanted to quell problems and get the NIKE factories up and running again.

Perhaps China did that, but were it the U.S. in China's posistion, they would have done the same thing. China competes with these countries for U.S. investement, why would they help them?

France. Well, for one thing (damn fucking english keyboard! Jesus...) Coate D'Ivoire(Or Ivory Coast, In english) was a French colony, and they feel they have a responsibility towards them, you know, not let them tear themselves apart with civil war and such.

But why would they have that many in Afghanistan? Was it a French colony? No, not at all. In fact, they had not part in the situation in Afghanistan, so why should they be policing it? Well, as part of the U.N. of course, but I feel that 500 is sufficent, seeing as they outlined that they weren't in the mood, and seeing as Afghanistan is relativly under control now.



**WRONG**. North Korea invaded (free) South Korea! Korea had been partitioned for 5 YEARS at the time.
**WRONG**. North Viet Nam was Communist. South Viet Nam was not. The US President Kennedy got involved specifically to keep France in NATO. Fat lot of good that did.
**WRONG** Try ethnic cleansing and genocide. There was NO Communist government in sight!! And, btw, Jugoslavia is a perfectly acceptable spelling.


Again, I say, Unified Korea. South Korea revolted.

Korea was once the Republic of Korea. In 1948 the worlds superpowers cut it in half, but it was still Korea.

In 1950, the Korean war started, which was essentially just U.S. tries to "Liberate" the north of Korea,(although it was a unified effort, with combined yankee and cannuck forces). Fails. The Republic of South Korea was formed under the watchfull eye of the States, who approves as president warlord rebel Park Chung Hee, who ruled with dictatorial powers.

I'm sorry, Vietna, well, that's simply not true. It was completly communist. France was bitter about losing it, sure, but they did next to nothing about it after losing it. They United States invaded to stop the Domino Effect(which most people don't believe existed, and I agree)

But only managed to De-communize the South. The country THEN split into two, and eventually the communist goverment in the North fell, and they re-united(and it feels so good!)

Yugoslavia.
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, if you will.
Founded in the Novemeber of 1945, it's first President was Ivan Ribar, and in 1953 the very Famous Marshall Tito was elected to office, later becoming president for life in 1963.

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under the leadership of President Tito, was very famous for NOT answering to the Soviets, never signing the Warsaw pact in even joined the league of non aligned nations.

Under President Tito's reign, the economy flourished, and the good president stopped the ethenic infighting calling upon Yugoslavian patriotism and workers solidarity.

Basketball became the national sport.

And then President Tito died, plunging the country into ethenic warfare, and spliting up former Yugoslavia into many new countries.

Why do the Quebecois like France?

The Quebequois couldn't care less about France. They don't give shit about France. They care about THEMSELVES, Quebec, French Canadian culture, not French culture.

They really couldn't care less about France. Quebequers are Canadians, not Frenchmen.

Have you ever been to Quebec?

Er, HELPED them set up a new nation. And slavery in the US existed for hundreds of years BEFORE there was a US, thanks to England, France, Spain, Holland, and Portugal.
Oh, and the Africans themselves, whom sold rival tribes to the whites.

Did they ask officially?

So what? Firstly, they helped them out of selfishness. The whites were afraid of the freed slaves pulling a Haitian Revolution on them, and so they shipped them off to Liberia. They wanted to put them ALL there, but alot of them would not leave.

Sure, it existed before the U.S. So did stabbing people in the gut. Does that make me less bitter that you stabbed me?

And, well, yes, indeed the tribes did sell the prisoners off, and as did the arabs, but I don't really care if a weather it's a white guy kidnaping and enslaving me, a black guy kidnaping and enslaving me or a cheeseman from space kidnaping me and enslaving me. Your still enslaved!

Well of course! Do you see the Taleban giving Canada any money? :rolleyes:

But I thought the point was to help them rebuild? If that were the case, why does it matter where the contractors are from? Hmmmm....


You're cynical, so there's little point debating this point.

What's there to debate? It's all there.

Um... you do know that the Iraqis themselves want it, right?
A, B) Please send me the link of US endorsed candidates.
C) A 60% turnout beats this arguement.
D) Um, actually no. Not only did the Iraqis provide most of the security, but the IECI is doing the counting. It has no Americans.

The U.S. endorsed the same guy they installed earlier.

I didn't mean all of them! Of course they'll go out and vote in the hope that it will turn out OK, but I doubt that that many of them actually think there ballad will matter.

The Iraqis provided security? That's simply not true! There were American soldiers everywhere! And besides, the Iraqis answer to the Americans.

Iraqis provided security? Do you think it was the Iraqis who stopped all the traffic in Baghdad? No.

The IECI? the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq.
http://www.uniraq.org/elections/faq.asp and
http://www.unicwash.org/news/news_15dECEMBERiRAQUPDATE.html

They have? Who is it? Or is it just whomever wins? (If so, that's just being a spoil-sport...)

IECI. Ok. Well the Americans are still the ones with the guns. The Americans still control all of the communications that the IECI uses, and can very easily distort the facts. And who do you think created the IECI? It wasn't the Iraqis, let me tell you.

And, I will bet you that not only will not Islamist party get more than two seats in the house, but neither will the Socialists(there are alot of them In Iraq)

Furthermore, I bet you that the guy the United States installed the first time will come out winner(or at least the same party.)

But regardless of outcome, the new President will be a president who is pro-us.

Nope. I do not want my empTy Vee. :D

I hear you. I can't stand fucking music videos. I've said it before and I'll say it (well,write it) again, music was never meant to be on TV.

And that's perfectly fine, and I of course don't begrudge you your opinions. I also enjoyed your posts... they're more lucid than most. :)
I do think you might be painting with too wide a brush, tho...


How very kind of you too say.

As for the brush thing, well, I am talking about America as in there goverment and national economy. I know that you cannot define a people by the actions of there goverment.

Holy crap! That took me a whole epsode of Just for Laughs.....

I have too much time on my hands since I started not leaving my house....

America arent world leaders and no they shuldnt be.

Back to wot sum1 sed about only China having an army equivalent to the USA and that wos only because of numbers, actually ur wrong. Russia would probably defeat u easily, Britian wouldnt have to even try due to the superior forces and the French would probably defeat u as well. O and also have u noticed that the war America lost, was the war Britain and France werent involved in. And u think ur great for kiking the British out of America in 17__(wotever year it wos). Have u noticed it was 9000 Brits against 5000 Americans and 40,000 French. Hmmm yeh fair fight especiall as u didnt actually have anywhere near as big an army as France fighting us. So kind of shows that u didnt really do anything to kik us out it was mostly the French

O and btw I am British

Man, how many times has the U.S. come in for the sole purpose of freedom.

Your whole article is totally rediculous.

Do you think people are free in Pakistan? In Indonesia?

What about the poor Sudanese, or the Algerians?

No, my friend, cries for freedom are only heard like that when the U.S. wants them to hear it.

For example, Algeria is not near America nor does it have any oil.

Iraq has an oil supply, which was under the control of an enemy.

Ok, see, Iraq invades Kuwait with American weapons. America, Kuwait being there ally and oil buddy, defends Kuwait, places sanctions on Iraq.

Thats alot of oil now that Iraq cannot sell to America, and alot of oil in which American companies cannot invest in. That matters.

Burma, the Army starts a coup and installs a military dictator.

But who gives a shit about Burma? I mean, it all comes down to THERE interests.

Haiti, no oil, but it's close to the U.S., and countries close to the U.S. have to be kept stable.

"We go in and stomp a few dictator asses" if those dictators arn't our good friends.

And I don't blame them! I mean, I've said it before, if they went off running into everything moraly correct cause, it'd be there own end!

But there not the knights in shinning armour, not in the least.

Hey, guess what, you know Liberia?

When the President went to visit, America stationed 45 marines in the capital city. For some reason, Liberians love americans to the point of madness.

Those forty five marines had the rebels deciding that they should put aside there differences and not embarass each other in front of americans. Those 45 marines, who were not even fighting or policing, just there presence in the city, had the entire civil war stopped cold.

And guess what happened when the President left? Marines went home, civil war.

That's hardly what I would call moraly correct.
Your another victim of blatantly bad American propaganda.

Now, not touching Iraq's oil, true, all to true, but guess who's going to get the devolopement contracts? Guess who? American companies.

And guess who the new president of Iraq will be? It doesn't matter, as long he'll sell out to America.

Do you get Fox news?

As for the U.S., alot of my friends give it thirty years, but all of my friends are completly insane.

Alot of my family gives it 50 years, but I don't think so.

I give it another hundred, in slow decline, until if finally explodes.

Although, I dread the day, because when the U.S. goes, so does Canada.

Hey, I bet you don't even know any Iraqis, do you, union guy?

Now, if any of that insults you, don't take it as such. Just bring it up with me.
None of it was meant as an insult.

Yeah, you know if the US invades and frees any of the countries you just listed howmuch the rest of the world would be on our asses? George W would be considered a warmonger even more, maybe even booted from presidency, the EU would be pissed and start straining relations with the US and it will start even worse protests

America arent world leaders and no they shuldnt be.

Back to wot sum1 sed about only China having an army equivalent to the USA and that wos only because of numbers, actually ur wrong. Russia would probably defeat u easily, Britian wouldnt have to even try due to the superior forces and the French would probably defeat u as well

O and btw I am British

1. Learn to spell, moron.

2. China's army is NOT equivalent to the U.S. Sure, they'd put up a helluva fight, but we would just take them down using our Naval Blockades and Air Strikes.

3. Russia...would loose. Once again, they'd be a tough enemy, but they are most conscripts and poorly trained. Not exactly the best military force.

4. Britain wouldn' beat us. They just rely too much on imports, and we would just blockade em and then bomb 'em. Of course, we'd never have to fight Britain...

5. France? Please.

6. All in all, learn to spell, actually RESEARCH these people's army, and for god's sake man, LEARN TO SPELL!(I know I said it twice.)

I can spell perfectly actually i just find it quicker and easier to type short.

Anyway lets think about Britain and America like this.
102,000 perfectly trained soldiers in the Army plus a brilliant navy and a brilliant air force (the best in the world) with a 97% perfect strike rate in bombing raids against;

300,000 soldiers that manage to keep shooting each other
The navy, ok that aint to bad ill give u that and
An air force with a 47% strike rate in bombing raids and trust me these are reliable sources

America arent world leaders and no they shuldnt be.

Back to wot sum1 sed about only China having an army equivalent to the USA and that wos only because of numbers, actually ur wrong. Russia would probably defeat u easily, Britian wouldnt have to even try due to the superior forces and the French would probably defeat u as well. O and also have u noticed that the war America lost, was the war Britain and France werent involved in. And u think ur great for kiking the British out of America in 17__(wotever year it wos). Have u noticed it was 9000 Brits against 5000 Americans and 40,000 French. Hmmm yeh fair fight especiall as u didnt actually have anywhere near as big an army as France fighting us. So kind of shows that u didnt really do anything to kik us out it was mostly the French

O and btw I am British

ARE YOU SHITTING ME? THe US would take the brits (not like we would ever start a war against each other any time soon) the French cud suck my right nut and the Russians would be a challenge (the Earth wouldnt be inhabitable anymore if the US and Russia got in a nuclear war)

-Also we had more that 5,000 americans and more than 9,000 british;

-we also beat you in the war of 1812 (close one tho-america was dumb for that one)

-France wouldn't have even existed anymore if we diddnt help you in WWII

- as for vietnam-I have yet to see anyone win a geurilla war using conventional tactics

I can spell perfectly actually i just find it quicker and easier to type short.

Anyway lets think about Britain and America like this.
102,000 perfectly trained soldiers in the Army plus a brilliant navy and a brilliant air force (the best in the world) with a 97% perfect strike rate in bombing raids against;

300,000 soldiers that manage to keep shooting each other
The navy, ok that aint to bad ill give u that and
An air force with a 47% strike rate in bombing raids and trust me these are reliable sources
Your buttcheeks are reliable sources? Seems to be the area your pulling the stats from.

Yeah. At this point I am tempted to belt out the first few lines of "American Idiot". Yay, America! Aren't I patriotic?

So ur saying that very high ranks of the military forces arent reliable sources.
Ill believe America would beat Britain when I c it

O and another thing how can America say Nukes r so wrong and invade Iraq for having them and then have so many themselves.
And after the American-Russian nuke reducement at least Russia destroyed them instead of storing them like America did

So ur saying that very high ranks of the military forces arent reliable sources.
High ranking members of the military forces of the US and UK would be very reliable sources for this kind of information.

You just don't have contact with them.

I can spell perfectly actually i just find it quicker and easier to type short.

Anyway lets think about Britain and America like this.
102,000 perfectly trained soldiers in the Army plus a brilliant navy and a brilliant air force (the best in the world) with a 97% perfect strike rate in bombing raids against;

300,000 soldiers that manage to keep shooting each other
The navy, ok that aint to bad ill give u that and
An air force with a 47% strike rate in bombing raids and trust me these are reliable sources


OK and then when we get full wartime production going, a draft, plus our troops arent the pieces of shit that you think they are. you also are too confedent in your navy and air force. the US has better everything exept maybe for special forces. and if it came down to nukes, we would blow you back to stonehege

I can spell perfectly actually i just find it quicker and easier to type short.

Anyway lets think about Britain and America like this.
102,000 perfectly trained soldiers in the Army plus a brilliant navy and a brilliant air force (the best in the world) with a 97% perfect strike rate in bombing raids against;

300,000 soldiers that manage to keep shooting each other
The navy, ok that aint to bad ill give u that and
An air force with a 47% strike rate in bombing raids and trust me these are reliable sources

1. We have over 600,000 of very well trained infantry.

2. The largest(and best) navy in the world.

3. The BEST Airforce in the world(The RAF is very good though, so it would be hard to take em out).

4. We could draft more people.

5. We could arm more people.

6. We could equip more people.

7. A war would never happen, so why are we even debating it?

SEO Kingdom- can you get tell me where you are getting this info from

If the infantry is so much better then how come the British have lost not even 100 troops in Iraq where as the Americans (including wounded and deserters) have lost 6,000

7. A war would never happen, so why are we even debating it?

Because he disresprcted us by saying the french have a better army than us :D

SEO Kingdom- can you get tell me where you are getting this info from

Members of the military why?

If the infantry is so much better then how come the British have lost not even 100 troops in Iraq where as the Americans (including wounded and deserters) have lost 6,000

Because we have more troops stationed in iraq, so more attacks would happen more frequently on them, you have your best troops stationed in iraq, and the US is hated more by insergents making them on of the #1 priorities

If the infantry is so much better then how come the British have lost not even 100 troops in Iraq where as the Americans (including wounded and deserters) have lost 6,000
Britain's forces are mainly stationed in the quiet (Shia) areas of Iraq, not Fallujah and Najaf.

Members of the military why?

yes

If the infantry is so much better then how come the British have lost not even 100 troops in Iraq where as the Americans (including wounded and deserters) have lost 6,000

Simple:

BECAUSE YOU HAVE LESS TROOPS THERE!

Less troops= less casualties. WE have over 150,000 troops there, you have about 8,000.

Not to mention, you have Basra(which is a quieter city).

yes

Yes?????? Wtf r u on about

Simple:

BECAUSE YOU HAVE LESS TROOPS THERE!

Less troops= less casualties. WE have over 150,000 troops there, you have about 8,000.

Not to mention, you have Basra(which is a quieter city).

And why do we have less troops there?
Because we are better trained so we dont need as many

So ur saying that very high ranks of the military forces arent reliable sources.
Ill believe America would beat Britain when I c it

O and another thing how can America say Nukes r so wrong and invade Iraq for having them and then have so many themselves.
And after the American-Russian nuke reducement at least Russia destroyed them instead of storing them like America did

HEHEHE more power for us :D

Iraq would use the nuke on someone they diddnt like (Namely the US, Israel or BRITAIN emphasis:BRITAIN) and the US would probably never use their nukes

the brits have some nukes of their own no?

And why do we have less troops there?
Because we are better trained so we dont need as many

No.

Because your government didn't want to SEND more! Not to mention, you are guarding an insey-winsey amount of quiet land. You don't need 150,000 men for that.

And why do we have less troops there?
Because we are better trained so we dont need as many
And why is Basra a quiter city? Cause the British at least know what they are doing.

And why do we have less troops there?
Because we are better trained so we dont need as many

ARE YOU THAT THICK! Iraq needs policemen until a full security force can be installed and 8,000 troops arent going to do that no matter how good they are. The US troops are the temporary policemen for Iraq

Well, if you think about it, America is not really a military superpower.

That is an illusion. Sure, there army has the best equipement, and all that shit, but america cannot actually take on anyone but military wusses.

I mean, the american people are completly unwilling to commit to any sort of long standing all out ground war.

They've only lost about 2000 soldiers in Iraq and the whole godamn countries up in arms.

You really don't have a clue about what you are talking about do you?

That is an illusion. Sure, there army has the best equipement, and all that shit, but america cannot actually take on anyone but military wusses.

You do realize that pre-2003 invasion Iraq had one of the largest militaries in the world right? The US has the 5th largest, Iraq had the 6th.

Iraq was actually quite powerful. The only reason the Iraqi military was defeated was because it was going up against the US. They had thousands of tanks, a couple hundred helicopters, and several hundred infantry fighting vehicles, everything a modern army should.

The fact that they were beaten so fast only shows how strong the US military is.

I mean, the american people are completly unwilling to commit to any sort of long standing all out ground war.

They've only lost about 2000 soldiers in Iraq and the whole godamn countries up in arms.

Hmmm....your right, the US is completely unwilling to withstand casualties. That's why we gave up in WWII. :rolleyes:

And a thousand dead is MUCH more than most countries would take. Germany, France, and most European countries would've been out of there with 50 dead.

And for those of you arguing about who would win in a war between the US and Britain are wasting your time. The US has a military budget of $334 billion. That's larger than Britain, China, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, and Russia combined.

Of course the US would win, the Brits arguing that they wouldn't have something wrong with them.

ARE YOU THAT THICK! Iraq needs policemen until a full security force can be installed and 8,000 troops arent going to do that no matter how good they are. The US troops are the temporary policemen for Iraq

I think he is.

And why is Basra a quiter city? Cause the British at least know what they are doing.

No, it's just that most of the insurgents have better targets. Baghdad is the capitol you know? :rolleyes:

You also know that most of Basra's populace hated Saddam right? In the Persian Gulf war the city of Basra staged a revolt against Hussein which was later violently put down.

Of course Basra is quieter.

America arent world leaders and no they shuldnt be.

Back to wot sum1 sed about only China having an army equivalent to the USA and that wos only because of numbers, actually ur wrong. Russia would probably defeat u easily, Britian wouldnt have to even try due to the superior forces and the French would probably defeat u as well. O and also have u noticed that the war America lost, was the war Britain and France werent involved in. And u think ur great for kiking the British out of America in 17__(wotever year it wos). Have u noticed it was 9000 Brits against 5000 Americans and 40,000 French. Hmmm yeh fair fight especiall as u didnt actually have anywhere near as big an army as France fighting us. So kind of shows that u didnt really do anything to kik us out it was mostly the French

O and btw I am British

Russia has the second largest military budget in the world with $60 billion. The US is first of course, with $334 billion. It is not possible for Russia to beat the US.

China, France, Britain, and Russia together could not beat the US.

If another country would like to go out and free opressed people, protect freedom or be the "world police" too the US would like that. Anyone want to help? (nearly as much,same as or more then the US [edit: proportionally to the US])?
Anyone?
......
No one? Really? :eek:

That is what I thought :rolleyes:

If you aren't willing to get off your a$$ and help, shut up and let people who will actually do it for you then.

Well, people fortold that Rome would fall because it was too power-hungry and evil.

And guess what? Rome(including the Byzantine Empire) lasted over 2,000 years.

...and I could argue that Rome never fell. The Ottomans never had a state until they took a Byzantine city (Bursa), thus technically making them a "rebel" force within Byzantium. The fact that they also targeted Constantinople, made it their capital and adminstered their Empire like the Byzantines, thus making the Ottomans, really, Muslim rulers of Byzantium. That and Mehmed II took the title of "Kaiser-i-Rum" ("Caesar of the Romans"), believing himself to be the heir to the Roman Empire, so it's obvious the Ottomans didn't think they were "ending" the Roman State.

As for the US: I've never believed they were ever a superpower. You can talk about technology all you want- the fact remains that in two of the biggest operations in US history- the Vietnam conflict in 1964-75 and the Iraqi invasion of 2003- were disasters shows that, on its own, the Americans were not capable of winning a war. Sure, there's The Gulf War, but the Americans received substantial help. Oh, and with regards to the World Wars: the US entered when both were basically over, so they did not have to do much.

...and I could argue that Rome never fell. The Ottomans never had a state until they took a Byzantine city (Bursa), thus technically making them a "rebel" force within Byzantium. The fact that they also targeted Constantinople, made it their capital and adminstered their Empire like the Byzantines, thus making the Ottomans, really, Muslim rulers of Byzantium. That and Mehmed II took the title of "Kaiser-i-Rum" ("Caesar of the Romans"), believing himself to be the heir to the Roman Empire, so it's obvious the Ottomans didn't think they were "ending" the Roman State.

As for the US: I've never believed they were ever a superpower. You can talk about technology all you want- the fact remains that in two of the biggest operations in US history- the Vietnam conflict in 1964-75 and the Iraqi invasion of 2003- were disasters shows that, on its own, the Americans were not capable of winning a war. Sure, there's The Gulf War, but the Americans received substantial help. Oh, and with regards to the World Wars: the US entered when both were basically over, so they did not have to do much.

You could argue that Rome never fell, but nobody sensible would agree with you. The Ottomans didn't think they were ending the Roman state, but Rome as it was identified ceased to exist, replaced by an Ottoman state.

The failure of the war in Vietnam and whatever aspects of the current Iraqi war you think have failed have nothing to do with military might. These "failures" are due to lack of support in Congress leading to inability to properly deploy troops and weapons and lack of international support I'd hate for you to get the wrong impression. It's not that we can't do it, it's that few others recognize it as being important. In the case of Iraq, I'd hardly call it a failure. We got Saddam out, shut down his dictatorial, mass-murdering government and replaced it with as good a democracy as they were willing to accept. Now the Iraqi people can express themselves without fear of suppression by their government, and all ideas can be heard without fear of retribution, except by the Sunni insurgents, and we're working on them still. As has been said several times in this thread, we're fighting guerilla troops and we're still adjusting. But don't worry too much about it.

...and I could argue that Rome never fell. The Ottomans never had a state until they took a Byzantine city (Bursa), thus technically making them a "rebel" force within Byzantium. The fact that they also targeted Constantinople, made it their capital and adminstered their Empire like the Byzantines, thus making the Ottomans, really, Muslim rulers of Byzantium. That and Mehmed II took the title of "Kaiser-i-Rum" ("Caesar of the Romans"), believing himself to be the heir to the Roman Empire, so it's obvious the Ottomans didn't think they were "ending" the Roman State.

As for the US: I've never believed they were ever a superpower. You can talk about technology all you want- the fact remains that in two of the biggest operations in US history- the Vietnam conflict in 1964-75 and the Iraqi invasion of 2003- were disasters shows that, on its own, the Americans were not capable of winning a war. Sure, there's The Gulf War, but the Americans received substantial help. Oh, and with regards to the World Wars: the US entered when both were basically over, so they did not have to do much.

Wow, its been awhile since I have seen someone so arrogant and unwilling to accept facts.

You are right about the US not being a superpower, the French gave it the term hyperpower. No other nation has the ability to go anywhere in the world and win a war.

You said that WWII was basically over when the US entered? That only proves that you are an ignorant idiot.

I won't even waste my time dealing with you because you obviously don't listen to facts.

You could argue that Rome never fell, but nobody sensible would agree with you. The Ottomans didn't think they were ending the Roman state, but Rome as it was identified ceased to exist, replaced by an Ottoman state.

A) Mehmed II took the title of Roman Caesar. Certainly he didn't think he was extinguishing the Roman State.

B) Like I said, the Ottomans never became a state until they entered Byzantine land. They made their capital at Constantinople and continued many of the old Byzantine administrative traditions. The only thing different about the Ottoman Empire is that it was Muslim.

Wow, its been awhile since I have seen someone so arrogant and unwilling to accept facts.

You are right about the US not being a superpower, the French gave it the term hyperpower. No other nation has the ability to go anywhere in the world and win a war.

You said that WWII was basically over when the US entered? That only proves that you are an ignorant idiot.

I won't even waste my time dealing with you because you obviously don't listen to facts.

I should have qualified myself: the Americans entered the European war when it was almost over. They handled themselves quite well against the Japanese and for that I'll give them credit.

Regardless, I look at results. The US may have possessed all the military might in the world, but the fact still remains that in the periods of their "greatness" they haven't done much with it. They were embarassed in Vietnam, they're getting embarassed in Iraq and now have half the world hating them. The military may be powerful but the administration certainly isn't up to par. At least Rome knew what they were doing- I'm not sure if the US does.

...and I could argue that Rome never fell. The Ottomans never had a state until they took a Byzantine city (Bursa), thus technically making them a "rebel" force within Byzantium. The fact that they also targeted Constantinople, made it their capital and adminstered their Empire like the Byzantines, thus making the Ottomans, really, Muslim rulers of Byzantium. That and Mehmed II took the title of "Kaiser-i-Rum" ("Caesar of the Romans"), believing himself to be the heir to the Roman Empire, so it's obvious the Ottomans didn't think they were "ending" the Roman State.

As for the US: I've never believed they were ever a superpower. You can talk about technology all you want- the fact remains that in two of the biggest operations in US history- the Vietnam conflict in 1964-75 and the Iraqi invasion of 2003- were disasters shows that, on its own, the Americans were not capable of winning a war. Sure, there's The Gulf War, but the Americans received substantial help. Oh, and with regards to the World Wars: the US entered when both were basically over, so they did not have to do much.

1. Interesting about the Byzantines and the Ottomans :D

2. What the...

we entered the war when both were baisically over? Sure, World War 1 was almost over, but in WWII? HELLO! in January 1942, the Japanese had overrun the Far East and the Pacific, The Germans were crushing the Russians, the French were non-existant, the Italians were winning battle after battle in North Africa, and the Chinese were dying in the thousands. The tides didn't turn until at least mid 1943, and most likely June 1944(when we began the push into the western part of Germany's conquests).

Sure, Vietnam was a mistake, but from a military standpoint we won. Every battle, we won. Over 1,000,000 N. Vietnamese were killed, and we only lost 50k. The only reason we had to pull out was because of those dang hippies.

And sure, Iraqi-Freedom hasn't been the best military operation, but we haven't failed yet. The elections have shown that most of the country are at least backing the democracy we are putting in, and we control every major city(including Fallujah now).

Also, you forgot the Spanish-American War. We crushed the Spanish, and gained huge swathes of land. And the War of 1812. We repulsed attack after attack of British assaults(although they DID manage to capture Washington, D.C.). And the Mexican-American War, when everyone thought that the Mexicans would beat us. And we won. And the Korean War, where we did most of the fighting, and we managed to hold our ground against a much larger force of Chinese Troops, N. Korean Troops, and Soviet Planes.

1. Interesting about the Byzantines and the Ottomans :D

It's all about technicalities, and a little bit of denial ;)

2. What the...

we entered the war when both were baisically over? Sure, World War 1 was almost over, but in WWII? HELLO! in January 1942, the Japanese had overrun the Far East and the Pacific, The Germans were crushing the Russians, the French were non-existant, the Italians were winning battle after battle in North Africa, and the Chinese were dying in the thousands. The tides didn't turn until at least mid 1943, and most likely June 1944(when we began the push into the western part of Germany's conquests).

I'll grant them WWII with regards to Japan...that was gutsy and very well-planned. However, they entered Europe when it was almost over, as, did, technically speaking the rest of the Allies- the Soviets were doing fine against Germany all by themselves. Now, why the Allies came in is another debate, but the point still remains the US didn't do that much on the European front.

Sure, Vietnam was a mistake, but from a military standpoint we won. Every battle, we won. Over 1,000,000 N. Vietnamese were killed, and we only lost 50k. The only reason we had to pull out was because of those dang hippies.

Somehow I doubt this. I don't doubt your figures I just doubt how successful the operation was. The Americans were in Vietnam for over none years (1964-73), which is an excessively long time to be in a country as small and not nearly as powerful as Vietnam, with the Tet Offensive proving that the North Vietnamese could actually hold out on their own against the US. Besides, the fact still remains that the US pulled out of the war having accomplished nothing, thus conceding defeat.

And sure, Iraqi-Freedom hasn't been the best military operation, but we haven't failed yet. The elections have shown that most of the country are at least backing the democracy we are putting in, and we control every major city(including Fallujah now).

Yet you're still losing people. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq) Maybe not a crushing defeat, but it's hardly a resounding victory either.

Also, you forgot the Spanish-American War. We crushed the Spanish, and gained huge swathes of land. And the War of 1812. We repulsed attack after attack of British assaults(although they DID manage to capture Washington, D.C.). And the Mexican-American War, when everyone thought that the Mexicans would beat us. And we won. And the Korean War, where we did most of the fighting, and we managed to hold our ground against a much larger force of Chinese Troops, N. Korean Troops, and Soviet Planes.

The War of 1812 I consider a US defeat. Others say it was a stalemate but it effectively ended any plans by the US to annex Canada, thus why I count it as a defeat. Spain in 1898 was in the throes of a heavy decline- just barely sixty years prior it lost its entire North American Empire to Simon Bolivar. It wasn't near the same calibre as Britain was at the time. Powerful, maybe, but the US still had bigger fish to fry back then if they were to be held as a superpower.

As for the Korean War: officially, it was a stalemate. Despite years of fighting, neither side were able to effectively resolve anything, leaving the border roughly where they started- the 38th parallel. The war swung back and forth, dipping deep into both nations, although, granted, the US was fighting against a comparable force and the South Koreans did manage to take more of North Korea than the North Koreans managed to take of the south.

Alexias, note that I've left some of my post in with your quote for clarity's sake.

I'm sorry, I am terrible with computers. How is that done?


When you reply, just copy n’ paste the [ ] quote and [ ] /quote to the front and back of the section of text. Makes it *so* much easier to read. Yes, it is time consuming.


Since 1950:
Poland, East Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Jugoslavia (et al), Romania, Bulgaria, and all of the former USSR.
South Korea
Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti
Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq

You may find this interesting: http://www.opinionjournal.com/colum...r/?id=110005504

Poland-Freed themselves. The words solidarity movement ring a bell?
East Germany-They gave up communism due to immenent popular revolt and to save there economy.
Czech Republic-Freed themselves. Communist Strike sound familiar?
Slovakia-Again, just them....(Prague Spring?)
Hungary-I can't say I remember that, do tell.
Yugoslavia-Never answered to Russia, the leader died of old age plunging the country into anarchy.
Bulgaria-Do tell.
Romania-popular revolt
Former USSR(this could take a while)
Lativia et al-Sceded


You’re missing the point: you asked whom has the US freed, not whom the US freed through armed intervention. All of these count, as the US (& NATO) was fighting a Cold War and broke the Comintern’s economy.

BTW: (Poland) Solidarity was funded and supplied by Reagan. :)
Further, your dates are off on Czechoslovakia: the Prague Spring was in 1968, which caused the Warsaw Pact invasion. This is how my father came to live in the USA. The Velvet Revolution only came after the Berlin Wall came down.
Still Further: East Germany- And you do realize why that happened right? That little boarder opening? ;)


Sorry, I don't remember any great United States invasion freeing ANY of the Soviet Bloc Republics.

Think about it, if they did, do you think they would have not nuked everything? I doubt it.

U.S.S.R. came down on it's own, sorry buddy.

The USSR came down because it could not keep up with the US in economics, space, and military spending all at the same time. If there was no US/an isolationist US, the USSR would likely not have fallen.


South Korea-No, it was Korea, I'm quite certain of that. Sure, there was civil war, but there was a united Korea.

Oh, dear me! Korea was partitioned on 8 September, 1945.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ks.html
“Following its victory in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, Japan occupied Korea; five years later it formally annexed the entire peninsula. After World War II, a republic was set up in the southern half of the Korean Peninsula while a Communist-style government was installed in the north.”
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/korpart.htm

“Disagreement about the reasons for Korea's partition in 1945 developed in parallel with the historical debate surrounding the origins of the Korean conflict, although with far less intensity. Arguably, Korea's division at the 38th parallel as World War II ended was the most important event in the modern history of that nation. Had the United States and the Soviet Union not forcibly divided this East Asian country, there would have been no Korean War.”


Grenada? I'd can't remember.
The US intervened against Cuba and some allies. Operation Urgent Fury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Urgent_Fury


Panama? Yes, you freed them from a U.S. installed dictator, to whose atrocities(and drug rings) you turned a blind eye to. It was only when he decided he no longer wanted to be a puppet president that the U.S. got rid of him.

Sounds like Iraq, no? We’re cleaning up the mess we made.


Nicaragua? I can't remember.
The Reagan interventions and the Contras?? They’re a free nation, today.


Haiti-They stopped it from collasping into anarchy and civil war, yes, but they didn't exactly free it. They were just about to take care of that themselves.

Freeing a nation and governing it are two separate things. They were, by any definition, freed of their oppressor. Remember, it is France that forced them to give up the land that became the Domenican Republic to pay off a debt!
BTW, the last time they "took care of it themselves" was Papa Doc. And we saw how well that went. :rolleyes:


Kuwait. For yourselves, but yes.
Afghanistan-For yourselves, yes again, I give you that.
Iraq-Yes, for yourselves.
Oh? Has Kuwait got a star on the flag now?
Oh? Has Afghanistan got a star on the flag now?
Oh? Has Iraq got a star on the flag now?

I feel a little “sour grapes” here, but c’mon! I would be very disappointed if you're one of those that always looks at "the dark side" of what the US does as the reason it does anything.


Tell that to all the Iraqis Saddam killed. It isn't morally correct to get clean up a bad situation one caused?

As I said, a mess that hurts you and no one else. America installed the Shah of Iran, popular revolt destroys the Shah, the Iranians hate America.[/QUOTE]

We most certainly did NOT install the Shah!
(Dude, where did you learn History from?!?) We *backed* the Shah.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the last Shah) took power of Iran in 1941, and INHERITED the post from his father.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi


And so you strengthen Hussein to fight Iran. I ask again, how is that morally correct?

I didn’t. I said we put him there, and by taking him OUT we were morally correcting a past transgression.


And that's not just my feeling. I know Iraqis who've had family members murdered by the secret police, who've had dissapeared after getting in El Presidente's way. They don't appreciate America's strengthening of President Hussein at all.

No kidding. Are they not happy he is gone now?


FALSE!
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/resear...sheet-1984.html
"it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out"

In fact, most of Iraq's chemical weapons were *not* of US origin!

Perhaps not invented by the U.S., perhaps not even manufactured completly by the U.S, but you sold them, and the material he would need to make them, to him, knowing full well what his plans were.

EVERYBODY sold stuff to Iraq! I’m not saying he had NO American made stuff.

I’m saying that you were first off by saying he invaded Kuwait with American weapons, and that you were THEN off by saying all his chemical weapons were from the US! He had some in each case, but NOT most, and certainly not ALL US gear.


The US is certainly *not* the only nation that gets involved when things go badly, but it does so more often, and more consistently than others. The French having 4000 troops in Ivory Coast is good, but why do they have only 500 in Afghanistan? CANADA dwarfs them!
Where the HECK were the Chinese during the tsunami disaster? They kept their fleet (the largest in the region, after the US) IN DOCK!

All these countries affected are heavily invested in by U.S. companies for cheap manufacturing. Therefore, they obviously wanted to quell problems and get the NIKE factories up and running again.

Most US manufacturing is in China and Viet Nam, not Indonesia.
“The stock of U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Indonesia in 2001 was $8.8 billion and is concentrated largely in petroleum and mining.” http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2748.htm


Perhaps China did that, but were it the U.S. in China's posistion, they would have done the same thing. China competes with these countries for U.S. investement, why would they help them?

Um?? Sending ships and planes to save lives and drop survival supplies would hurt them commercially why??


France. Well, for one thing (damn fucking english keyboard! Jesus...) Coate D'Ivoire(Or Ivory Coast, In english) was a French colony, and they feel they have a responsibility towards them, you know, not let them tear themselves apart with civil war and such.

Which is fine.


But why would they have that many in Afghanistan? Was it a French colony? No, not at all. In fact, they had not part in the situation in Afghanistan, so why should they be policing it? Well, as part of the U.N. of course, but I feel that 500 is sufficent, seeing as they outlined that they weren't in the mood, and seeing as Afghanistan is relativly under control now.

But France postures itself as “an American Counterweight”, expecting other Euro nations to follow it’s lead. Yet in the biggest UN deployment, they are (new numbers: up to 873) behind Canada!
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm


**WRONG**. North Korea invaded (free) South Korea! Korea had been partitioned for 5 YEARS at the time.
**WRONG**. North Viet Nam was Communist. South Viet Nam was not. The US President Kennedy got involved specifically to keep France in NATO. Fat lot of good that did.
**WRONG** Try ethnic cleansing and genocide. There was NO Communist government in sight!! And, btw, Jugoslavia is a perfectly acceptable spelling.

Again, I say, Unified Korea. South Korea revolted.
As posted above, you are mistaken.


Korea was once the Republic of Korea. In 1948 the worlds superpowers cut it in half, but it was still Korea.
1946, and that made it 2 countries.


In 1950, the Korean war started, which was essentially just U.S. tries to "Liberate" the north of Korea,(although it was a unified effort, with combined yankee and cannuck forces). Fails. The Republic of South Korea was formed under the watchfull eye of the States, who approves as president warlord rebel Park Chung Hee, who ruled with dictatorial powers.

Er, not quite. It was the UN trying to keep the Chinese from taking over the whole peninsula, with the aid of Soviet pilots.


I'm sorry, Vietnam, well, that's simply not true. It was completly communist. France was bitter about losing it, sure, but they did next to nothing about it after losing it. They United States invaded to stop the Domino Effect(which most people don't believe existed, and I agree)

But only managed to De-communize the South. The country THEN split into two, and eventually the communist goverment in the North fell, and they re-united(and it feels so good!)

Er… nope. The vote was invalidated and the South was set up as a republic…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam


Yugoslavia.
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, if you will.
Founded in the Novemeber of 1945, it's first President was Ivan Ribar, and in 1953 the very Famous Marshall Tito was elected to office, later becoming president for life in 1963.

And then President Tito died, plunging the country into ethenic warfare, and spliting up former Yugoslavia into many new countries.

Do dates mean much to you? Tito died in 1980! His death had NOTHING to do with the disolution of Jugoslavia! It took another DECADE!
Jugoslavia hosted the WINTER OLYMPICS in 1984!
Further, NONE of the new gov’ts in the 90s were communist. The US intervened during the Clinton administration (90s) to stop ethic cleansing, not to halt a Communist resurgence!


Why do the Quebecois like France?

The Quebequois couldn't care less about France. They don't give shit about France. They care about THEMSELVES, Quebec, French Canadian culture, not French culture.

They really couldn't care less about France. Quebequers are Canadians, not Frenchmen.[/QUOTE]

My cousin’s wife is Quebecois. They (at least) most certainly have a soft spot for France.


Have you ever been to Quebec?

Not outside the airport, but I know quite a few Quebecois due to family relations.


Er, HELPED them set up a new nation. And slavery in the US existed for hundreds of years BEFORE there was a US, thanks to England, France, Spain, Holland, and Portugal.
Oh, and the Africans themselves, whom sold rival tribes to the whites.

Did they ask officially?

So what? Firstly, they helped them out of selfishness. The whites were afraid of the freed slaves pulling a Haitian Revolution on them, and so they shipped them off to Liberia. They wanted to put them ALL there, but alot of them would not leave.

Um.. what? ALL of the blacks that went to Liberia were already freed, and it was post-American Civil War.

Sure, it existed before the U.S. So did stabbing people in the gut. Does that make me less bitter that you stabbed me?

No, I’m just pointing out that slavery was not solely an American institution, and was not one that was started by Americans.
Never mind that my America begins in 1970... ;)


And, well, yes, indeed the tribes did sell the prisoners off, and as did the arabs, but I don't really care if a weather it's a white guy kidnaping and enslaving me, a black guy kidnaping and enslaving me or a cheeseman from space kidnaping me and enslaving me. Your still enslaved!

Yep.


But I thought the point was to help them rebuild? If that were the case, why does it matter where the contractors are from? Hmmmm....

Your point was that the US would get all the contracts. My point is that the US allies would also get them, and they would work to rebuild Iraq, as they’re the ones contributing the troops and money in the first place.
It matters a whole lot.


You're cynical, so there's little point debating this point.

What's there to debate? It's all there.

Um... you do know that the Iraqis themselves want it, right?
A, B) Please send me the link of US endorsed candidates.
C) A 60% turnout beats this arguement.
D) Um, actually no. Not only did the Iraqis provide most of the security, but the IECI is doing the counting. It has no Americans.

The U.S. endorsed the same guy they installed earlier.

Pre election. I thought we were talking about now?


I didn't mean all of them! Of course they'll go out and vote in the hope that it will turn out OK, but I doubt that that many of them actually think there ballad will matter.

I *know* in most Presidential elections that my vote doesn’t matter. Yet I vote all the same.


The Iraqis provided security? That's simply not true! There were American soldiers everywhere! And besides, the Iraqis answer to the Americans.

Iraqis provided security? Do you think it was the Iraqis who stopped all the traffic in Baghdad? No.

The Iraqis have American guidance, but they are an independent command structure. Also:
“Iraqi police will guard polling centres and the national guard will form an outer ring. US forces and the Iraqi army will make up a second ring of security on the edges of major cities. ”
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5DDA194B-DF45-4CF2-B871-BDF5DC9B1972.htm

… or is Aljazeera a US puppet too? ;)

The IECI? the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq.
http://www.uniraq.org/elections/faq.asp and
http://www.unicwash.org/news/news_1...iRAQUPDATE.html


They have? Who is it? Or is it just whomever wins? (If so, that's just being a spoil-sport...)

IECI. Ok. Well the Americans are still the ones with the guns. The Americans still control all of the communications that the IECI uses, and can very easily distort the facts. And who do you think created the IECI? It wasn't the Iraqis, let me tell you.

Every Iraqi is allowed to have a pistol and an AK-47 by license.
Dude, America can’t get someone close enough to kill bin Laden for us. You think we could spoof REAL TIME communications in Arabic? (Oh, I *wish*!!)

You’re RIGHT! The UN helped create the IECI with the Iraqis… :D


And, I will bet you that not only will not Islamist party get more than two seats in the house, but neither will the Socialists(there are alot of them In Iraq)

Furthermore, I bet you that the guy the United States installed the first time will come out winner(or at least the same party.)

Time will tell. I don’t know what the outcome will be, but it will be interesting to see.

But regardless of outcome, the new President will be a president who is pro-us.

Very likely, as the #1 task for any Iraqi prez will be to get rid of the terrorists. The #2 job will be to get Iraq strong enough that it doesn not require occupation troops to keep the peace.


Nope. I do not want my empTy Vee.

I hear you. I can't stand fucking music videos. I've said it before and I'll say it (well,write it) again, music was never meant to be on TV.

Dude, I MISS music videos!! Ever since MTV went to a “lifestyle” chanel, there don’t play ‘em. When I can, I catch VH1 Classic at the bar. The 1980-1995 videos are the best.


And that's perfectly fine, and I of course don't begrudge you your opinions. I also enjoyed your posts... they're more lucid than most.
I do think you might be painting with too wide a brush, tho...

How very kind of you too say.

As for the brush thing, well, I am talking about America as in there goverment and national economy. I know that you cannot define a people by the actions of there goverment.

Not at all. There is far too much uncivil behaviour on the forums. Nice to have an intelligent conversation.

The last time America stayed out of foreign policies, Germany conquered half of Europe.... just a thought....
On the other hand, i dont like the way America is dealing with other countries at the moment. Diplomacy must consist out of more than just invading countries, which are unwilling to join their "world".
All in all i would say, that Americas influence in the world is maybe not unimportant, but it shall not be used without serious considerations (+cooperation with the rest of the free world !)

Perhaps you could use your influence with Israel (and your aid to Israel as tool), to make Israel really engage in a peace effort with the Palestinians.

Naturally, we would need Palestine to engage also - but Israel seems to be the sticking point (plus it is the one occupying the land).

I just have to say something about America's power.


Lets say that China deploys nucular force. They nuke some country somewhere or they send a few towards the US. The US is told to beat them down, but spare the world a nucular holocaust. Everything else goes.

Day 1 of US attack:
The US rain ICBMs filled with HE onto important targets. Cities get a good going over from the missles. The US fleet prepares to deploy.

Day 20:
The US fleet uses sea-to-sea cruise missles to destroy and disable the Chinese fleet from over the horizen. Chinese missles either miss or are shot down by US chain guns. Meanwhile, US troops mass in S. Korea, and missle bases are set up there.

Day 25:
China moves invade S. Korea. The mountains are ideal for US helios, who make a mess of China's tank divisions. We will leave out Korea here, only US and China. China's Infantry, poorly trained and equipt, are thrown back by the better US troops, who use the cover of the mountains to their advantage.
Fighters start the first runs on the cities, drawing out and butchering China's MiGs, and cruise missles are used in huge numbers to destory anything that could mean anything for the Chinese.

Day 30: The US fleet, after destroying any sea mines by air, enter a Chinese port and star messing up anything nearby. Bombers, no longer needing to worry about MiGs destroying them, move in and ruin the shit of any large cities.
By now the Chinese are surrendering in huge numbers rather than walk into the numerous kill zones that have been deployed in the mountains. Anyone who does enter are beaten down by US artillery, tanks and machine guns.
So now any Chinese city on the coast has been eaten, massive losses have been taken in Korea, and the US has bombed everything of value.

Surrender?

When you reply, just copy n’ paste the [ ] quote and [ ] /quote to the front and back of the section of text. Makes it *so* much easier to read. Yes, it is time consuming.

What do you know, it does work!



[/QUOTE]Not at all. There is far too much uncivil behaviour on the forums. Nice to have an intelligent conversation.[/QUOTE]


How very kind of you too say.

I just wish I could talk too you in person, I really don't like having to read from the computer. Hurts the eyes, eh?

I am rather pressed for time now, but I will rebuke you for disagreeing with me(which is an unforgivable sin.) later, when I have time.

But I have had much fun debating with you too.

See you around.

(I will get to this, but there is a sticky child I must attend to. I hate sticky children. They make me want to hurt them. I wish my father would just take care of his kids and not keep calling me over.But I digress.........)

Again, I will answer soon, sorry to take so long, I was swamped at work and my internet went down.

I will get to this as soon as I can.

And feel like it. But keep in touch, eh man?